Something I noticed about Arcane and Divine casting

[Belac93]

So, everyone can see the different sources of magic. Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards draw on Arcane magic (although some people think warlocks are a little iffy on this), and Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers draw on Divine power.

So, here is what I noticed. Arcane characters all have a special thing that they can do with their spells, usually focused on regaining spell slots. Wizards have arcane recovery, Sorcerers have sorcery points, Warlocks regain spells on short rests, and Bards gain magical secrets. They often have a way to keep casting for a long time, or the ability to cast a lot of spells (sorcerous restoration, spellbooks, invocations, and magical secrets). Also, arcane casters all have a set number of spells. They have spells known for their level, and that does not change day-to-day. The wizard bends these rules a little, with spellbooks and preparing, but the idea is the same.

On the flip side, divine characters (with the exception of ranger, which seems like it should be a martial anyway), can use any spell on their spell list, but it is limited by their spellcasting stat. Also, they all have a certain way to gain specific spells; Land druid, Cleric domains, and Paladin oaths.

So, here is how I see the difference between the two:


Arcane
Divine


Chooses list of available spells from larger list at level up.
Chooses spells every day from a slightly larger list, restricted by spellcasting stat.

[/tr]

Can regain spells at non-restricted times during the day.
Regains spells at long rests.


Has your spells, has the option of gaining others.
Has your spells, must gain others depending on career path.


This is probably completely wrong, but I'm bored and want to write stuff down and show people.

[R.Shackleford]

Land Druid gains arcane recovery for their spells.

[Blue Lantern]

You forgot Land Druid that get the same ability as wizard to recover spell slots.
Bard don't have any method to recover spell slots.
Also warlock can gain spells not on their class list based on career path.
And past lvl 3 no sorcerer ever uses spell points to regain slots considering its inefficiency.

All in all it does not seems too fitting, too many exceptions.

[famousringo]

There really is no arcane/divine split anymore. The PHB doesn't talk about it, and classes blur the lines at a whim. Cleric domains full of wizard spells. A sorcerer list that drops wizard spells and picks up druid spells. Bards that enjoy a mishmash of cleric of wizard spells with a dash whatever they damn well please.

Arcane/divine is somewhat useful in describing what you're trying to achieve with your magic, "divine" being generally better at martial and support magic, "arcane" generally better at blasting, control and utility. But for the most part magic is magic, and any given class is carving a piece from one big magic pie, rather than two flavours of pie.

I do consider the classes that get more than the standard portion of spell slots (wizards, sorcerers, land druids, maybe tomelocks) to be "supercasters". They've traded a lot of durability and martial effectiveness to get more magic than even other full casters enjoy.

[RickAllison]

Also note that Bards aren't really pinpointed as arcane in the books. Bards seem like they straddle the line between arcane and divine.

[R.Shackleford]

Also note that Bards aren't really pinpointed as arcane in the books. Bards seem like they straddle the line between arcane and divine.

Even 3e had the Divine and Nature Bards.

[TheFlyingCleric]

So there are 6 fullcaster classes in the game, along with 2 half-casters. There are also the Eldritch Knight's & Arcane Tricksters, whose spellcasting features are so similar I will consider them a single spellcasting class.
That's 9 spellcasting classes. 5 of these can be considered 'Arcane': Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and the EK's/AT's. The other four can be considered 'divine': Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger.

Here's a comparison table I made, showing a bunch of significant properties and which classes have them.



This class...
Yes
No


Can cast 9th level spells at level 17
Bard (A), Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), Warlock (A),
Cleric (D) Druid (D)
EK / AT (A),
Paladin (D), Ranger (D),


Can change their spells at the end of a long rest
Wizard (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D)
Bard (A), Sorcerer (A), Warlock (A), EK / AT (A),
Ranger (D)


Picks spells as they level up
Bard (A), Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A) Warlock (A), EK / AT (A),
Ranger (D)
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D)


Can pick spells outside their spell lists, due to class features
Bard (A), Warlock (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (land) (D), Paladin (D)
Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), EK / AT (A),
Ranger (D)


Can regain spell slots without taking a long rest
Wizard (A), Sorcerer (A), Warlock (A),
Druid (land) (D)
Bard (A), EK / AT (A),
Cleric (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)


Has healing spells
Bard (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)
Wizard (A), Sorcerer (A), Warlock (A), EK / AT (A)


Has at least one armor proficiency
Bard (A), Warlock (A), EK / AT (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)
Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A)


Has proficiency with Medium armor and shields
(Note: All classes have either both or neither of them)
Bard (Valor) (A), EK / AT (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)
Bard (lore) (A), Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), Warlock (A)


Has Mage Armor on their spell list
Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), EK / AT (A)
Bard (A), Warlock (A)
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)


Damn this took a long time
Looking at this, there are a number of trends you can see, including those the OP spotted. But there are exceptions to these trends
The most consistent difference between Arcane and Divine casters is not, as you may expect, in their Spellcasting features. It's actually their armor proficiencies.

At level 1, all of the Divine casters are proficient with medium armor and shields, but none of the Arcane casters are.
Also, all Divine Casters can heal. The only Arcane Caster that has healing spells is the Bard.

[R.Shackleford]

So there are 6 fullcaster classes in the game, along with 2 half-casters. There are also the Eldritch Knight's & Arcane Tricksters, whose spellcasting features are so similar I will consider them a single spellcasting class.
That's 9 spellcasting classes. 5 of these can be considered 'Arcane': Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and the EK's/AT's. The other four can be considered 'divine': Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger.

Here's a comparison table I made, showing a bunch of significant properties and which classes have them.



This class...
Yes
No


Can cast 9th level spells at level 17
Bard (A), Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), Warlock (A),
Cleric (D) Druid (D)
EK / AT (A),
Paladin (D), Ranger (D),


Can change their spells at the end of a long rest
Wizard (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D)
Bard (A), Sorcerer (A), Warlock (A), EK / AT (A),
Ranger (D)


Picks spells as they level up
Bard (A), Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A) Warlock (A), EK / AT (A),
Ranger (D)
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D)


Can pick spells outside their spell lists, due to class features
Bard (A), Warlock (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (land) (D), Paladin (D)
Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), EK / AT (A),
Ranger (D)


Can regain spell slots without taking a long rest
Wizard (A), Sorcerer (A), Warlock (A),
Druid (land) (D)
Bard (A), EK / AT (A),
Cleric (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)


Has healing spells
Bard (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)
Wizard (A), Sorcerer (A), Warlock (A), EK / AT (A)


Has at least one armor proficiency
Bard (A), Warlock (A), EK / AT (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)
Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A)


Has proficiency with Medium armor and shields
(Note: All classes have either both or neither of them)
Bard (Valor) (A), EK / AT (A),
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)
Bard (lore) (A), Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), Warlock (A)


Has Mage Armor on their spell list
Sorcerer (A), Wizard (A), EK / AT (A)
Bard (A), Warlock (A)
Cleric (D), Druid (D), Paladin (D), Ranger (D)


Damn this took a long time
Looking at this, there are a number of trends you can see, including those the OP spotted. But there are exceptions to these trends
The most consistent difference between Arcane and Divine casters is not, as you may expect, in their Spellcasting features. It's actually their armor proficiencies.

At level 1, all of the Divine casters are proficient with medium armor and shields, but none of the Arcane casters are.
Also, all Divine Casters can heal. The only Arcane Caster that has healing spells is the Bard.

Arcane casters tend to get Mage Armor which is 13 + Dex (no cap)

So while they don't get armor prof they get a spell that effectively gives them medium armor prof.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Arcane casters tend to get Mage Armor which is 13 + Dex (no cap)

So while they don't get armor prof they get a spell that effectively gives them medium armor prof.

Not quite. Mage armor is very different to medium armor. For one thing RAW doesn't let you combine mage armor with a shield, even if the Sorcerers and Wizards who get the spell had shield proficiency in the first place. They also can't wear Magic Armor or Shields, while Divine casters can.
Not all Arcane casters have Mage Armor; only Sorcerers and Wizards, to counter their complete lack of Armor Proficiencies. it's slightly better than studded leather, but does cost a spell slot and can be dispelled. It's more like light armor really.

[R.Shackleford]

Not quite. Mage armor is very different to medium armor. For one thing RAW doesn't let you combine mage armor with a shield, even if the Sorcerers and Wizards who get the spell had shield proficiency in the first place. They also can't wear Magic Armor or Shields, while Divine casters can.
Not all Arcane casters have Mage Armor; only Sorcerers and Wizards, to counter their complete lack of Armor Proficiencies. it's slightly better than studded leather, but does cost a spell slot and can be dispelled. It's more like light armor really.

You can add Mage Armor and a shield. Shields add a flat Bonus to AC and Mage Armor is an AC equation.

Just like the shield spell or shield of faith works while you have mage armor on.

Mage Armor is the caster's way of having medium armor.

[RickAllison]

Not quite. Mage armor is very different to medium armor. For one thing RAW doesn't let you combine mage armor with a shield, even if the Sorcerers and Wizards who get the spell had shield proficiency in the first place. They also can't wear Magic Armor or Shields, while Divine casters can.
Not all Arcane casters have Mage Armor; only Sorcerers and Wizards, to counter their complete lack of Armor Proficiencies. it's slightly better than studded leather, but does cost a spell slot and can be dispelled. It's more like light armor really.

There is nothing that prohibits Mage Armor being used with shields. All other armor calculations (Unarmored Defense for both monk and barbarian, natural armor, etc.) treat them separately, why wouldn't this one as well?

By RAW and RAI, Mage Armor works perfectly fine with shields. It is definitely more like light armor, though dang good light armor. It only gets the chance to be as good or better than higher medium armor if you have a massive Dexterity.

[R.Shackleford]

There is nothing that prohibits Mage Armor being used with shields. All other armor calculations (Unarmored Defense for both monk and barbarian, natural armor, etc.) treat them separately, why wouldn't this one as well?

By RAW and RAI, Mage Armor works perfectly fine with shields. It is definitely more like light armor, though dang good light armor. It only gets the chance to be as good or better than higher medium armor if you have a massive Dexterity.

I think the Monk's Unarmored Defense specifically calls out shields as not working with it.

[RickAllison]

I think the Monk's Unarmored Defense specifically calls out shields as not working with it.

Indeed. It mentions that it doesn't work with armor, then specifically notes that it doesn't work with shields. If shields were considered armor in the general sense, that addendum wouldn't be necessary, it would be part and parcel of the armor clause.

[TheFlyingCleric]

There is nothing that prohibits Mage Armor being used with shields. All other armor calculations (Unarmored Defense for both monk and barbarian, natural armor, etc.) treat them separately, why wouldn't this one as well?

By RAW and RAI, Mage Armor works perfectly fine with shields. It is definitely more like light armor, though dang good light armor. It only gets the chance to be as good or better than higher medium armor if you have a massive Dexterity.

Originally I thought RAW supported it as well. But then it came up in a different thread I was reading:

Basically, shields are considered armor; they're on the Armor table, they have a don and doff time, and shield proficiency comes under armor proficiencies; they are armor, and suffer the restrictions of such. In order to gain the shields armor bonus, you must be 'wearing' the shield. Therefore it conflicts with Mage Armor, which requires that the target is not wearing Armor. RAW is clear.

As for RAI, since all the classes that have Mage armor don't have shield proficiency, there isn't really anything to give us a hint as to what was intended.


Personally I don't like this. I think that if a player goes to the trouble of both getting shield proficiency and spending a spell slot on Mage Armor, they should be able to benefit from that. But that's just how I would do things; it's not necessarily supported by RAW or RAI.

EDIT: Reply to the Ninja.

Indeed. It mentions that it doesn't work with armor, then specifically notes that it doesn't work with shields. If shields were considered armor in the general sense, that addendum wouldn't be necessary, it would be part and parcel of the armor clause.

In this case, In think they were just trying to be really clear that Monks + Shields don't mix


Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however.
Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.

If you don't consider a shield to be 'Worn Armor', then there is no penalty to wearing a shield while not proficient with shields.

[R.Shackleford]

Originally I thought RAW supported it as well. But then it came up in a different thread I was reading:

Basically, shields are considered armor; they're on the Armor table, they have a don and doff time, and shield proficiency comes under armor proficiencies; they are armor, and suffer the restrictions of such. In order to gain the shields armor bonus, you must be 'wearing' the shield. Therefore it conflicts with Mage Armor, which requires that the target is not wearing Armor. RAW is clear.

As for RAI, since all the classes that have Mage armor don't have shield proficiency, there isn't really anything to give us a hint as to what was intended.


Personally I don't like this. I think that if a player goes to the trouble of both getting shield proficiency and spending a spell slot on Mage Armor, they should be able to benefit from that. But that's just how I would do things; it's not actually supported by RAW or RAI.

No, they are not armor.

Another place where WotC got lazy? Yes. But even by RAW shields are not armor or else they wouldn't add to your armor class when wearing armor. They just happen to be placed on the armor table to be convenient. If shields were placed on the weapon table (or on no table) people would have either had a fit or wouldn't be able to find them.

From SRD

"Armor Categories

Light Armor: Made from supple and thin materials, light armor favors agile adventurers since it offers some protection without sacrificing mobility. If you wear light armor, you add your Dexterity modifier to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class.

Medium Armor: Medium armor offers more protection than light armor, but it also impairs movement more. If you wear medium armor, you add your Dexterity modifier, to a maximum of +2, to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class.

Heavy Armor: Of all the armor categories, heavy armor offers the best protection. These suits of armor cover the entire body and are designed to stop a wide range of attacks. Only proficient warriors can manage their weight and bulk. Heavy armor doesn’t let you add your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class, but it also doesn’t penalize you if your Dexterity modifier is negative.

Shields: A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time."

The only one to not be called armor in its description is the shield.

Even with their lazy/hasty design the shield is not armor.

[Segev]

Not quite. Mage armor is very different to medium armor. For one thing RAW doesn't let you combine mage armor with a shield, even if the Sorcerers and Wizards who get the spell had shield proficiency in the first place. They also can't wear Magic Armor or Shields, while Divine casters can.
Not all Arcane casters have Mage Armor; only Sorcerers and Wizards, to counter their complete lack of Armor Proficiencies. it's slightly better than studded leather, but does cost a spell slot and can be dispelled. It's more like light armor really.

Do you base this on the line in mage armor about only casting it on somebody not wearing armor? I'm not 100% positive that bearing a shield counts as "wearing" armor.

Though given 5e's preference for gray areas being DM calls, this probably falls firmly in that zone.

[Logosloki]

...even by RAW shields are not armor or else they wouldn't add to your armor class when wearing armor...

That is a good point. Reminds me of the good ol' Monks aren't proficient in unarmed attacks from 3.5.

[Mr.Moron]

Indeed. It mentions that it doesn't work with armor, then specifically notes that it doesn't work with shields. If shields were considered armor in the general sense, that addendum wouldn't be necessary, it would be part and parcel of the armor clause.

The Barbarian has a similar line calling out you can use shields with it. Following the same logic, if shields weren't considered armor in the general sense that addendum wouldn't be necessary it would be part and parcel of the armor clause.

Shields are listed in the Armor section of the equipment table, and listed under the "Armor" line for proficiency.

Then again on the other hand the Proficiency line for "Armor " lists things like this: All armor, shields. If shields weren't armor why wouldn't they be included in all armor?

My point is that you can't really get meaningful information by reading the rules this way. They're casually written in loose language for easy consumption. They are not written with technical rigor, nor are they may meant to be read in way looking to cross-reference pages to infer intentions or construct logical structure. Magic: The Gathering this is not.

Meaning we can either wait for an explicit call out from an authoritative source, or just use the role of the abilities to figures out what makes sense.

Monks are unarmored guys who flip out and punch people, shields would interfere with that
Barbarians are tough guys who take a punch to the face, shields wouldn't interfere with that.

Is mage armor a kind of weak force bubble or a literal suit of "Mage Armor" constructed of force that more/less hugs the body? If it's the latter case shields should work just like they would regular armor, if it's the former shields clearly wouldn't.

[RickAllison]

The Barbarian has a similar line calling out you can use shields with it. Following the same logic, if shields weren't considered armor in the general sense that addendum wouldn't be necessary it would be part and parcel of the armor clause.

Shields are listed in the Armor section of the equipment table, and listed under the "Armor" line for proficiency.

Then again on the other hand the Proficiency line for "Armor " lists things like this: All armor, shields. If shields weren't armor why wouldn't they be included in all armor?

My point is that you can't really get meaningful information by reading the rules this way. They're casually written in loose language for easy consumption. They are not written with technical rigor, nor are they may meant to be read in way looking to cross-reference pages to infer intentions or construct logical structure. Magic: The Gathering this is not.

Meaning we can either wait for an explicit call out from an authoritative source, or just use the role of the abilities to figures out what makes sense.

Monks are unarmored guys who flip out and punch people, shields would interfere with that
Barbarians are tough guys who take a punch to the face, shields wouldn't interfere with that.

Is mage armor a kind of weak force bubble or a literal suit of "Mage Armor" constructed of force that more/less hugs the body? If it's the latter case shields should work just like they would regular armor, if it's the former shields clearly wouldn't.

Well if you want an authoritative source, I wouldn't bother explaining it since it has been confirmed by Mearls (not an authoritative source) and Crawford (official rules guru, so pretty dang authoritative). Crawford's tweet:


@Undead_Merchant @mikemearls Yes, the mage armor spell and the sorcerer's Draconic Resilience work with a shield.

[Saggo]

My point is that you can't really get meaningful information by reading the rules this way. They're casually written in loose language for easy consumption. They are not written with technical rigor, nor are they may meant to be read in way looking to cross-reference pages to infer intentions or construct logical structure. Magic: The Gathering this is not.

The problem is they did half of the PHB in loose natural language and half as a technical document, see ranged attacks vs ranged weapons and features working with all ranged weapons but not all ranged attacks as an example. They wanted to encourage rulings but as a collateral we're left guessing and inferring rules.


The only one to not be called armor in its description is the shield.

Even with their lazy/hasty design the shield is not armor.
It is lazy design, but the only reason it's not armor is because they said it wasn't. Nearly everything about them uses armor properties except the name.

[georgie_leech]

It is lazy design, but the only reason it's not armor is because they said it wasn't. Nearly everything about them uses armor properties except the name.

Well, that and the adding to AC thing instead of giving you a different method of calculating AC that all the other armors, Mage Armor, Draconic Resilience, and Unarmored Defence do.

[Saggo]

Well, that and the adding to AC thing instead of giving you a different method of calculating AC that all the other armors, Mage Armor, Draconic Resilience, and Unarmored Defence do.

AC calculations are several disparate, ad-hoc rules that barely resemble a unified system, whereas the rules governing the proficiency and active use of shields are fairly well codified with armor.

[Segev]

The Barbarian has a similar line calling out you can use shields with it. Following the same logic, if shields weren't considered armor in the general sense that addendum wouldn't be necessary it would be part and parcel of the armor clause.

This might be persuasive in 3.5e (though I'd be hesitant to accept it on its own), but in 5e, which is full of colloquial language and is written more with intent to get RAI across than be explicit RAW, "unnecessary" lines that serve as clarifications can and do occur. So one interpretation rendering it unnecessary doesn't mean that it wouldn't be included if that interpretation were valid.