PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-13, 09:44 PM
I've never been a fan of the division of magic into arcane or divine. It's a relic of earlier editions that especially doesn't fit well with the varieties of spell-casters in this edition. No longer are Paladins tied to gods; neither are druids or (especially) rangers. Thinking of sorcerers and wizards as both being "arcane" casters leaves very little daylight between them, with sorcerers coming out the loser.
Instead, I want to propose a trinity of stylistic extremes instead as a way of thinking about the spell-casting classes. I think of these as forming a triangle, one at each vertex. The edges represent hybrid styles. In reality, all the classes are hybrids, but some are strongly tied to one style while others are more balanced.
Auxiliary definition: a spell is a specific pattern that when energized (whether by a spell slot or an item or whatever) creates an extra-normal effect.
Practiced vs Mediated vs Intrinsic
Practiced spell-casters are those that gain their knowledge of spells through dedicated, repeated practice. This is where wizards, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters belong. Since they're directly creating the pattern from memory, a strong intellect is necessary. Effects that bolster and directly heal living beings are the weakness of this style--the number and complexity of the necessary effects are difficult to hold in memory.
Mediated spell-casters lean on other powerful beings to actually perform the patterns and then channel that energy through themselves. This requires the sensitivity to the guidance of the other beings. This is the home of clerics, druids, and rangers--the first channels divine (extra-planar) power, while the second two channel the spirits of the natural world. This style of magic might also be called contractual--the caster relies on his or her bond with another being or beings to enact the fantastical effects. Direct elemental or force-type effects are less common here, and the reliance on other beings makes these casters more narrow in focus (based on their contracting partner's specialties).
Intrinsic spell-casters use something inherent in themselves. They intuit the existence of these patterns. Paladins (empowered by their unshakable confidence in an Oath) and sorcerers (empowered by heritage, accident, or whatever) are prime examples of this style. These casters tend to be more narrow than even mediated casters--only some spells resonate with their makeup and "make sense" to them. At the same time, they often have access to idiosyncratic effects that can't be effectively mimic'd by other casters. They rely on direct force of will--telling reality to get bent and forcing it to listen, rather than subversion/reality-hacking (practiced) or outside intervention (mediated).
What about bards and warlocks? Those are hybrids. Depending on the exact conceptualization, they could fit in either of two of the three (or maybe between the three).
Bards, to me, are a combination of intrinsic and practiced, leaning toward the intrinsic. They learn in colleges, like wizards, and can mimic other casters with enough practice, but are empowered by rhythm and music and tend toward a freer style than wizards, who rely on practiced perfection.
Warlocks are more of an intuitive/mediated split, leaning toward the intuitive--they gain the initial spark from a contract but then develop that on their own.
Instead, I want to propose a trinity of stylistic extremes instead as a way of thinking about the spell-casting classes. I think of these as forming a triangle, one at each vertex. The edges represent hybrid styles. In reality, all the classes are hybrids, but some are strongly tied to one style while others are more balanced.
Auxiliary definition: a spell is a specific pattern that when energized (whether by a spell slot or an item or whatever) creates an extra-normal effect.
Practiced vs Mediated vs Intrinsic
Practiced spell-casters are those that gain their knowledge of spells through dedicated, repeated practice. This is where wizards, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters belong. Since they're directly creating the pattern from memory, a strong intellect is necessary. Effects that bolster and directly heal living beings are the weakness of this style--the number and complexity of the necessary effects are difficult to hold in memory.
Mediated spell-casters lean on other powerful beings to actually perform the patterns and then channel that energy through themselves. This requires the sensitivity to the guidance of the other beings. This is the home of clerics, druids, and rangers--the first channels divine (extra-planar) power, while the second two channel the spirits of the natural world. This style of magic might also be called contractual--the caster relies on his or her bond with another being or beings to enact the fantastical effects. Direct elemental or force-type effects are less common here, and the reliance on other beings makes these casters more narrow in focus (based on their contracting partner's specialties).
Intrinsic spell-casters use something inherent in themselves. They intuit the existence of these patterns. Paladins (empowered by their unshakable confidence in an Oath) and sorcerers (empowered by heritage, accident, or whatever) are prime examples of this style. These casters tend to be more narrow than even mediated casters--only some spells resonate with their makeup and "make sense" to them. At the same time, they often have access to idiosyncratic effects that can't be effectively mimic'd by other casters. They rely on direct force of will--telling reality to get bent and forcing it to listen, rather than subversion/reality-hacking (practiced) or outside intervention (mediated).
What about bards and warlocks? Those are hybrids. Depending on the exact conceptualization, they could fit in either of two of the three (or maybe between the three).
Bards, to me, are a combination of intrinsic and practiced, leaning toward the intrinsic. They learn in colleges, like wizards, and can mimic other casters with enough practice, but are empowered by rhythm and music and tend toward a freer style than wizards, who rely on practiced perfection.
Warlocks are more of an intuitive/mediated split, leaning toward the intuitive--they gain the initial spark from a contract but then develop that on their own.