Categorizing the Classes by Power Source

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like the idea (if not the implementation) of 4e's power sources--each class gets its power by drawing on one of a few sources of power. Classes that share the same source often behave similarly.

This isn't an explicit part of 5e, but I think the concept can be useful. As I see it, we can categorize the themes of the player classes as follows:

Each class has a source and a method of access for that source. The source is what sets them apart from earth humans--the reason they can do things that no normal person can (evade a fireball while standing in the middle of its blast, for example). In my setting, these are all magical (despite not using spells). The access method is the way that someone taps into the power source.

The Power Sources
Physical: This power source taps into the power of the physical realm--getting everything possible out of the body and exceeding its normal limits.
Primal: This power source taps into the power of the spiritual realm--either spirits, animals, plants, or rocks and trees. It's separate from divine because it focuses on the Material, not drawing power from sources in other planes.
Otherworldly: This power source taps into the powers of beings/forces on other planes of existence--gods, fiends, angels, etc.
Arcane: This power source taps into the impersonal forces of reality and manipulates the fabric of the planes without bias towards one particular plane.

Access Methods
Intrinsic access comes because of who the character is. These types of powers need mastery but can't be taught or learned, and they're not dependent on an outside source's approval. Teachers can show the way, but mastery requires a mindset or disposition and every practitioner is different (despite coming from the same school).
Mediated access comes because of who a character knows. These powers rely on a 3rd party without whom the power cannot be mastered further. This access requires a personal relationship with the granting source.
Learned access comes because of what a character knows. They can learn from another or figure things out themselves, but this power can be taught, at least to those with the proper talent. Schools are more unified and have greater similarities.

Some access is a hybrid of these methods.




Class
Source
Access


Barbarian
Primal/X (X varies by subclass)
Intrinsic


Bard
Arcane
Intrinsic/Learned


Cleric
Otherworldly
Mediated


Druid
Primal
Mediated


Fighter
Physical
Learned/Intrinsic (Learned primary?)


Monk
Physical/Otherworldly
Intrinsic


Paladin
Otherworldly
Intrinsic/Learned


Ranger
Primal
Intrinsic/Learned


Rogue
Physical
Intrinsic/Learned (Intrinsic primary?)


Sorcerer
Arcane
Intrinsic


Warlock
Otherworldly
Mediated/Learned or Mediated/Intrinsic


Wizard
Arcane
Learned



This adds up to 3 for each of the sources (a satisfying conclusion), with the following breakdown for access methods (counting hybrids as 50/50):

Intrinsic: 5
Mediated: 3
Learned: 4


which is a pretty even split.

Arcane-sourced classes tend to be learned or intrinsic. Otherworldly (as befits the theme) tend to be mediated or weakly learned. Primal is mediated or intrinsic, while physical is a mix of intrinsic or learned (and not mediated). Hybrid access is always a hybrid with learned as one component.

These are just provisional divisions, however. I'm open to dispute here.


I find that this breaks the classes down quite nicely and gives insight into how the classes are similar and how they're different from a thematic point of view.

Thoughts?

[CantigThimble]

Why is fighter learned and rogue intrinsic?

Where do you draw the line between "You need to figure it out for yourself, but teachers can help show the way" and "The abilities can be taught, at least to those with the proper talent".

[Millstone85]

In my setting, these are all magical (despite not using spells).
Physical: This power source taps into the power of the physical realm--getting everything possible out of the body and exceeding its normal limits.Also known as psionics, the way I have come to see it. Through harmony of body and mind, and their extensive training, one eventually achieves superhuman feats. And though it might make for a more animesque setting, I like the idea that not only monks but fighters too would be this.


Primal: This power source taps into the power of the spiritual realm--either spirits, animals, plants, or rocks and trees. It's separate from divine because it focuses on the Material, not drawing power from sources in other planes.
Otherworldly: This power source taps into the powers of beings/forces on other planes of existence--gods, fiends, angels, etc.Yes, that's a very thematic contrast.


Arcane: This power source taps into the impersonal forces of reality and manipulates the fabric of the planes without bias towards one particular plane.This feels like a catch-all, but maybe that's the point.

Alternatively, the otherworldly source could be separated into arcane magic, which comes from the Ethereal, the Echoes and the Inner Planes, and divine magic, which comes from the Astral and the Outer Planes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why is fighter learned and rogue intrinsic?

Where do you draw the line between "You need to figure it out for yourself, but teachers can help show the way" and "The abilities can be taught, at least to those with the proper talent".

I see fighters as learning from others in a formal manner (having a teacher), while I see a rogue as being more self-taught (on the job training). Those two really could be hybrids; the fighter is more like 70/30 L/I, while the rogue more like 30/70. In reality, all of them are hybrids of all three (like digital colors are made out of RGB) but it's more clear for most what the dominant "color" is.

Intrinsic is something that each individual does differently. You can see someone else do something, but doing it their way won't work. You have to make your own way of doing it even if the end result is the same. It's more of an intuitive process rather than an intellectual one. It's why monks key off of WIS, not INT.

Learned you can memorize directly and etch into muscle memory. A good wizard can replicate those gestures and intonations more perfectly, thus they get more effectiveness out of their spells.

[CantigThimble]

Personally, I think intrinsic and learned vary based on character, not class. Some fighters are going to be mostly self-taught via experience. Some rogues are going to have learned everything they know from their mentor. Some wizards went to wizard's college, some just found an old spellbook with a few first-level spells and extrapolated fom there.

While it may be more common for people to envision fighters with teachers and rogues who figured it out for themselves I think that's a trend in the choices people make when making characters, not something inherent to the classes themselves.

[Xetheral]

Warlock is a broad-enough concept to include the possibility of "intrinsic" as you've defined it. Examples:

A pact could have been a one-time exchange (or theft!) of power that then needs to be mastered, but the patron is out of the picture. An ancestor made a pact for power that flowed to their descendents. The patron is guiding the character to master power the character already possessed.

[Asmotherion]

I like the idea (if not the implementation) of 4e's power sources--each class gets its power by drawing on one of a few sources of power. Classes that share the same source often behave similarly.

This isn't an explicit part of 5e, but I think the concept can be useful. As I see it, we can categorize the themes of the player classes as follows:

Each class has a source and a method of access for that source. The source is what sets them apart from earth humans--the reason they can do things that no normal person can (evade a fireball while standing in the middle of its blast, for example). In my setting, these are all magical (despite not using spells). The access method is the way that someone taps into the power source.

The Power Sources
Physical: This power source taps into the power of the physical realm--getting everything possible out of the body and exceeding its normal limits.
Primal: This power source taps into the power of the spiritual realm--either spirits, animals, plants, or rocks and trees. It's separate from divine because it focuses on the Material, not drawing power from sources in other planes.
Otherworldly: This power source taps into the powers of beings/forces on other planes of existence--gods, fiends, angels, etc.
Arcane: This power source taps into the impersonal forces of reality and manipulates the fabric of the planes without bias towards one particular plane.

Access Methods
Intrinsic access comes because of who the character is. These types of powers need mastery but can't be taught or learned, and they're not dependent on an outside source's approval. Teachers can show the way, but mastery requires a mindset or disposition and every practitioner is different (despite coming from the same school).
Mediated access comes because of who a character knows. These powers rely on a 3rd party without whom the power cannot be mastered further. This access requires a personal relationship with the granting source.
Learned access comes because of what a character knows. They can learn from another or figure things out themselves, but this power can be taught, at least to those with the proper talent. Schools are more unified and have greater similarities.

Some access is a hybrid of these methods.




Class
Source
Access


Barbarian
Primal
Intrinsic


Bard
Arcane
Intrinsic/Learned


Cleric
Otherworldly
Mediated


Druid
Primal
Mediated


Fighter
Physical
Learned


Monk
Physical
Intrinsic


Paladin
Otherworldly
Mediated/Learned


Ranger
Primal
Intrinsic/Learned


Rogue
Physical
Intrinsic


Sorcerer
Arcane
Intrinsic


Warlock
Otherworldly
Mediated/Learned


Wizard
Arcane
Learned



This adds up to 3 for each of the sources (a satisfying conclusion), with the following breakdown for access methods (counting hybrids as 50/50):

Intrinsic: 5
Mediated: 3
Learned: 4


which is a pretty even split.

Arcane-sourced classes tend to be learned or intrinsic. Otherworldly (as befits the theme) tend to be mediated or weakly learned. Primal is mediated or intrinsic, while physical is a mix of intrinsic or learned (and not mediated). Hybrid access is always a hybrid with learned as one component.

These are just provisional divisions, however. I'm open to dispute here.


I find that this breaks the classes down quite nicely and gives insight into how the classes are similar and how they're different from a thematic point of view.

Thoughts?
I really like what you did there, but I disagree on some tropes, wile strongly agree on others. For example, I disagree with the monk, and would put him on the Primal source; It's more subtle, but it's a deep connection to the world around him that allows him to manifest his abilities, translated in Ki points; Also shares Wisdom as a trademark secondary stat.

I think the Physical sources of power are limited to the Fighter and Barbarian, but I can see the Barbarian as more of a Shaman, and a significant amount of Fighters do stuff that are more amazing than your average joe, so there must be some form of "primal magic" involved with them too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Warlock is a broad-enough concept to include the possibility of "intrinsic" as you've defined it. Examples:

A pact could have been a one-time exchange (or theft!) of power that then needs to be mastered, but the patron is out of the picture. An ancestor made a pact for power that flowed to their descendents. The patron is guiding the character to master power the character already possessed.

But in all of those cases, the power has a but for relationship to the patron. Without the patron's intervention, the character wouldn't have those powers. He might have others, but not those ones. So there's at least some substantial amount of Mediated in there. I've always considered each level in Warlock to be a separate bargain (possibly another clause in a pre-existing contract, possibly a whole new one-shot contract), especially those levels that grant Pact features. The rest of the class fluff shows the "arcane researcher" side, which accounts for the learned part.

And yes, for some classes (fighters and rogues especially) the relationship is squishier.

Some are clear-cut, though. The fact that a wizard can pick up a second-hand spell-book and figure it out means that it's a learned power. Intrinsic powers are a matter of discovering what you can already do and mastering that. For a sorcerer, the spells are already in their blood, in their soul no matter their original source. For a wizard, the patterns can be communicated from one to another.



I really like what you did there, but I disagree on some tropes, wile strongly agree on others. For example, I disagree with the monk, and would put him on the Primal source; It's more subtle, but it's a deep connection to the world around him that allows him to manifest his abilities, translated in Ki points; Also shares Wisdom as a trademark secondary stat.

I think the Physical sources of power are limited to the Fighter and Barbarian, but I can see the Barbarian as more of a Shaman, and a significant amount of Fighters do stuff that are more amazing than your average joe, so there must be some form of "primal magic" involved with them too.


Monks were the hardest to classify. I went with physical because it didn't seem spirit-focused (although the 4e monk...). They may be an otherworld/primal hybrid though...allowing that would allow for bards to be an arcane/??? hybrid. Hmm.

I may be being influenced by 4e's barbarians who were explicitly primal in origin, but they seem to be tapping into an external source for their rage. They're pulling power in from the world around them--some of the Xanathar's subclasses show this very well (elemental and spirit-focused sub-classes), as do the Totem abilities.

Fighters don't connect with the spirit-world at all; the nearest they come is to the arcane. Their power comes from themselves and from the raw physical world around them (instead of the spirits of nature or the elements). They're the half-arcane counterpart to the half-primal barbarian.

[Marcloure]

I very much like this categorization, and really miss the mention of Primal power in 5e. I just don't like druids and ranger to draw power from the "divine", and I like the idea of barbarians having this primal and instinctive connection. I pretty much like your class table as well, can't really disagree with any of your lines.

One think I really like to do in 4e, and that I couldn't put out very well in 5e, is giving small boons depending on a character's power source. For instance: for being in a temple of the gods, all divine classes gain bonus X there. Or a land that is filled with spirits and enhances primal classes. I had to improvise a lot of this in my adaptation of Madness at Gardmore Abbey to 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I very much like this categorization, and really miss the mention of Primal power in 5e. I just don't like druids and ranger to draw power from the "divine", and I like the idea of barbarians having this primal and instinctive connection. I pretty much like your class table as well, can't really disagree with any of your lines.

One think I really like to do in 4e, and that I couldn't put out very well in 5e, is giving small boons depending on a character's power source. For instance: for being in a temple of the gods, all divine classes gain bonus X there. Or a land that is filled with spirits and enhances primal classes. I had to improvise a lot of this in my adaptation of Madness at Gardmore Abbey to 5e.

I strongly dislike the Divine/Arcane split, especially for druids and rangers. It makes druids too much like nature clerics. I don't think it makes any sense in terms of the spells either.

I've always given bonuses for people depending on the situation, usually by giving free knowledge about things. Arcane power source people have a sense for arcane things/non-divine planar things. Otherworld-sourced people are more sensitive to the upper or lower planes (or related issues). Primal-sourced people are more sensitive to corruptions of nature. Physical-sourced people are more sensitive to people and social conditions.

[CantigThimble]

I think the intrinsic/learned distinction is actually just a distinction that only really applies to wizards and sorcerers. Every other class is so flexible in that regard that I don't think that the distinction is meaningful.

[Xetheral]

But in all of those cases, the power has a but for relationship to the patron. Without the patron's intervention, the character wouldn't have those powers. He might have others, but not those ones. So there's at least some substantial amount of Mediated in there. I've always considered each level in Warlock to be a separate bargain (possibly another clause in a pre-existing contract, possibly a whole new one-shot contract), especially those levels that grant Pact features. The rest of the class fluff shows the "arcane researcher" side, which accounts for the learned part.

Your definition for mediated includes: "These powers rely on a 3rd party without whom the power cannot be mastered further. This access requires a personal relationship with the granting source." I was providing Warlock examples where neither of these statements are true. Additionally, my examples all involve power that cannot be taught to others, so they wouldn't fall into the learned category. Intrinsic seems to be the best fit, even if there was a third party involved once.

For comparison, note that most Sorcerer origins imply a third party being involved as an ancestor, but you still categorize Sorcerers as intrinsic. A warlock whose power was introduced into the bloodline by an ancestor's pact would be an almost identical situation.

Ultimately, I think Warlocks (as a group) can plausibly use any of your three access types.

[JackPhoenix]

Barbarian: Storm Herald and Totem path may be primal, Battlerager and Berserker are physical, and Ancestral Guardian and Zealot are otherwordly by your definition.
Bard: Glamour is otherwordly, rest may fit under arcane.
Druids: may be primal, otherwordly or arcane. The fact that "spiritual realm" doesn't really exists in D&D doesn't help to keep matters clear. They are also more learned than mediated.
Paladin: purely intrisic if you go by their fluff. They draw their power from their own conviction, not from any learning or outside help.
Sorcerer: may be otherwordly or (by your definition) primal, depending on their origin just as often as arcane.

Also, inventing the whole power source thing and then having every class follow the same system of AEDU powers was one of the stupidest decisions in 4e. What's the point of havint that distinction at all?

[Daphne]

Not all Barbarians draw their power from a Primal source, it depends entirely on the subclass: Zealots get their power from Gods (Otherworldly source) and Berzerkers are just raw power, no magic, at all (Physical source).

Paladins don't fit any source, they get powers from their oaths, no gods, fiends, angels, etc, required.

[2D8HP]

The original three classes of D&D could be divided by "power-source" as well:


Arcane: Magic-User

Divine: Cleric
and
Physical: Fighting-man

I probably missed something, but what's the goal of this exercise?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your definition for mediated includes: "These powers rely on a 3rd party without whom the power cannot be mastered further. This access requires a personal relationship with the granting source." I was providing Warlock examples where neither of these statements are true. Additionally, my examples all involve power that cannot be taught to others, so they wouldn't fall into the learned category. Intrinsic seems to be the best fit, even if there was a third party involved once.

For comparison, note that most Sorcerer origins imply a third party being involved as an ancestor, but you still categorize Sorcerers as intrinsic. A warlock whose power was introduced into the bloodline by an ancestor's pact would be an almost identical situation.

Ultimately, I think Warlocks (as a group) can plausibly use any of your three access types.

I could see Warlocks as being Mediated/Intrinsic or Mediated/Learned, but they're all Mediated. With wording like "your patron grants..." and "Pact Magic", I don't see any other alternative.


Barbarian: Storm Herald and Totem path may be primal, Battlerager and Berserker are physical, and Ancestral Guardian and Zealot are otherwordly by your definition.
Bard: Glamour is otherwordly, rest may fit under arcane.
Druids: may be primal, otherwordly or arcane. The fact that "spiritual realm" doesn't really exists in D&D doesn't help to keep matters clear. They are also more learned than mediated.
Paladin: purely intrisic if you go by their fluff. They draw their power from their own conviction, not from any learning or outside help.
Sorcerer: may be otherwordly or (by your definition) primal, depending on their origin just as often as arcane.

Also, inventing the whole power source thing and then having every class follow the same system of AEDU powers was one of the stupidest decisions in 4e. What's the point of havint that distinction at all?

I strongly disagree with druids. Druids draw their power from the natural world around them, not manipulating upper/lower planes (otherworldly) or the fabric of reality itself (arcane). They're the defining primal class.

However the power got into the sorcerer's bloodline, they're manipulating reality directly. That's arcane.

Glamour bards, while they are mostly mind-affecting, don't draw on the upper/lower planes at all, so they can't be otherworldly.

I find the distinction useful because it clarifies the separation between the classes. Without it, druids and clerics don't make sense, and warlocks, sorcerers, and cleric/druids get all squished together. Unlike in 4e (where it was prescriptive), this is purely descriptive--it's a way of thinking about the classes rather than a mechanical imposition.


Not all Barbarians draw their power from a Primal source, it depends entirely on the subclass: Zealots get their power from Gods (Otherworldly source) and Berzerkers are just raw power, no magic, at all (Physical source).

Paladins don't fit any source, they get powers from their oaths, no gods, fiends, angels, etc, required.

Zealots, maybe. But rage itself is still a primal thing--drawing on nature. Berzerkers are rage incarnate. And rage just feels primal to me. I could see all barbarians being a Primal/X hybrid...

Paladins share lots of similarities with clerics--they're not tapping into specific deities (like clerics do), but tapping into the nature of the upper/lower planes themselves. They even have "Channel Divinity" options, as well as lots of features that directly affect things from upper/lower planes. That sure smells otherworldly to me.

[Millstone85]

I've always considered each level in Warlock to be a separate bargain (possibly another clause in a pre-existing contract, possibly a whole new one-shot contract), especially those levels that grant Pact features.
Paladins share lots of similarities with clerics--they're not tapping into specific deities (like clerics do), but tapping into the nature of the upper/lower planes themselves.Those are also my favourite interpretations.


manipulating upper/lower planes (otherworldly)
Otherworld-sourced people are more sensitive to the upper or lower planes (or related issues).What about the Inner Planes?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Those are also my favourite interpretations.

What about the Inner Planes?

I'll betray some ignorance, but the inner ones are elemental, right? That seems more the primal domain, but with heavy arcane overlap. But I dunno.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

It seems your power sources are completely arbitrary, with no basis in default fluff or mechanics. Feels like 4e already.

[Theodoxus]

Huh? I think your anti-4E bias is showing, Jack. You'll have to demonstrate how you think they're completely arbitrary - when at least half of them follow exactly the fluff layed out in both the PHB and SCAG specifically.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It seems your power sources are completely arbitrary, with no basis in default fluff or mechanics. Feels like 4e already.

...what part of "draws power from Outer planes", "draws power from Inner planes/elements/nature", "manipulates fabric of reality directly" and "draws power from the physical world and from themselves" is arbitrary? It covers all the various places one could draw power, it explains how druids are different than clerics and sorcerers from warlocks.

I think you've got an irrational dislike of 4e. As soon as I read the class listings in 5e I saw the same themes that were in 4e, just done better.

[RedMage125]

I see fighters as learning from others in a formal manner (having a teacher), while I see a rogue as being more self-taught (on the job training). Those two really could be hybrids; the fighter is more like 70/30 L/I, while the rogue more like 30/70. In reality, all of them are hybrids of all three (like digital colors are made out of RGB) but it's more clear for most what the dominant "color" is.

Intrinsic is something that each individual does differently. You can see someone else do something, but doing it their way won't work. You have to make your own way of doing it even if the end result is the same. It's more of an intuitive process rather than an intellectual one. It's why monks key off of WIS, not INT.

Learned you can memorize directly and etch into muscle memory. A good wizard can replicate those gestures and intonations more perfectly, thus they get more effectiveness out of their spells.

I think that's kind of a narrow definition of Rogue, don't you? Not all Rogues are street-thieves. In fact, none of mine have ever been. An Assassin Rogue with the Soldier background whose former occupation was doing Recon and scouting for the army is absolutely Learned.

And how do you get Monks as anything but Learned? They have to learn to focus their ki to begin with, and meditate and practice constantly. Yes, they use Wisdom, which is more instinct than intellect, but that's why they meditate, to constantly stay in tune with those instincts, unlike most of society, who tend to be subconsciously trained to ignore our instincts in favor of logic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that's kind of a narrow definition of Rogue, don't you? Not all Rogues are street-thieves. In fact, none of mine have ever been. An Assassin Rogue with the Soldier background whose former occupation was doing Recon and scouting for the army is absolutely Learned.

And how do you get Monks as anything but Learned? They have to learn to focus their ki to begin with, and meditate and practice constantly. Yes, they use Wisdom, which is more instinct than intellect, but that's why they meditate, to constantly stay in tune with those instincts, unlike most of society, who tend to be subconsciously trained to ignore our instincts in favor of logic.

I'll admit that for some classes, for whom I didn't have strongly-fixed opinions or where I could see multiple sides, my choices were based on my idiosyncratic need for symmetry. Having things split equally is just so much more aesthetically pleasing...:smallbiggrin:

I think that for some of the broader classes there's a range of possibilities. Some classes are defined more by their access method (sorcerers especially), while others are defined by their power source primarily (druids and clerics especially). Others have significant internal variation.

To use an analogy--it's like the RGB components for digital colors. Each source and each access method can take on values from off to on, resulting in a whole set of spectrums of classes.

The main thing was the idea of using these two basic divisions, even if not in the exact parameterization I gave, to think about the themes and fluff of the classes.

[JackPhoenix]

...what part of "draws power from Outer planes", "draws power from Inner planes/elements/nature", "manipulates fabric of reality directly" and "draws power from the physical world and from themselves" is arbitrary? It covers all the various places one could draw power, it explains how druids are different than clerics and sorcerers from warlocks.

I think you've got an irrational dislike of 4e. As soon as I read the class listings in 5e I saw the same themes that were in 4e, just done better.

No, 4e actually does it better, because the classes were sort-of designed with the power sources in mind.

According to you, barbarian getting really pumped up and angry and hitting someone extra hard isn't "getting everything possible out of the body and exceeding its normal limits", but fighter hitting you nine times in 6 seconds, monk shooting lasers and teleporting between shadows, and arcane trickster using illusions are.

And warlock dealing with archfey for power uses otherwordly power source, while glamour bard drawing power from his fey friends in feywild uses arcane power source to "tap into the impersonal forces of reality and manipulate the fabric of the planes without bias towards one particular plane" and dream druid doing the same uses primal power source, despite that power source being on a different plane, even though primal sources "focuses on the Material, not drawing power from sources in other planes".

Existing fluff already explains how druids are different from clerics and sorcerers from warlocks, without inventing "power sources" that don't make much sense, and trying to fit everyone into one of four boxes.

[Millstone85]

I'll betray some ignorance, but the inner ones are elemental, right?Yes, that's the ones.


That seems more the primal domain, but with heavy arcane overlap. But I dunno.One of my favourite pieces of 4e lore is how the primal spirits were an unforeseen byproduct of the clash betwen the gods and the primordials, and quickly grew strong enough to send them all back to the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos.

As I said earlier, I would associate arcane magic with the Ethereal and the planes it connects the Material with: the Feywild, the Shadowfell, and the Inner Planes.


Also, inventing the whole power source thing and then having every class follow the same system of AEDU powers was one of the stupidest decisions in 4e. What's the point of havint that distinction at all?I was mostly fine with the AEDU system, but I thought that each class having its own set of powers was a waste of paper and of the concept of power sources. There should have been one arcane-spell list, one divine-prayer list, one martial-exploit list, one primal-evocation list and one psionic-discipline list.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, that's the ones.

One of my favourite pieces of 4e lore is how the primal spirits were an unforeseen byproduct of the clash betwen the gods and the primordials, and quickly grew strong enough to send them all back to the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos.

As I said earlier, I would associate arcane magic with the Ethereal and the planes it connects the Material with: the Feywild, the Shadowfell, and the Inner Planes.


My main setting started in 4e, and still draws significant inspiration from it. For me, everything has a spirit associated with it. A meadow or a stream might have a spirit; that tree certainly does have a spirit, as does the wolf. And that's what primal classes draw from--druids make deals with individual spirits (I'll feed you energy if you'll do <spell effect>), rangers make friends with spirits and carry them around with them (and teach them tricks/learn tricks from them), barbarians channel the raw power of these spirits (anger's just the most easily accessed method for doing so).

I don't have the mirror planes per se, nor the Ethereal as such. I do have the elemental planes. My cosmology is quite different than the default.

[Kane0]

I personally find the innate/granted/learned split more interesting than the physical/spiritual/arcane one.

[Millstone85]

My main setting started in 4e, and still draws significant inspiration from it. For me, everything has a spirit associated with it. A meadow or a stream might have a spirit; that tree certainly does have a spirit, as does the wolf. And that's what primal classes draw from--druids make deals with individual spirits (I'll feed you energy if you'll do <spell effect>), rangers make friends with spirits and carry them around with them (and teach them tricks/learn tricks from them), barbarians channel the raw power of these spirits (anger's just the most easily accessed method for doing so).I like that. But I would add that while the spirit found within the fertile ground bears the mark of long sustained balances and cycles, the spirit of an earth elemental is something more ancient that cares not for such things. Here is the power of unfettered creation and destruction that wizards seek.


I don't have the mirror planes per se, nor the Ethereal as such. I do have the elemental planes. My cosmology is quite different than the default.Then you could simply associate arcane magic with the Elemental Planes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like that. But I would add that while the spirit found within the fertile ground bears the mark of long sustained balances and cycles, the spirit of an earth elemental is something more ancient that cares not for such things. Here is the power of unfettered creation and destruction that wizards seek.

Then you could simply associate arcane magic with the Elemental Planes.

That's just it. I think of wizardry as more system hacking--using words and gestures to input commands into the universe's OS.

All spells involve creating resonances in the local energy fields using energized patterns. It's how you learn/access those that differs.

But my theory of magic is neither here nor there, as it's quite not standard.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't have the mirror planes per se, nor the Ethereal as such. I do have the elemental planes. My cosmology is quite different than the default.

In that case, you should've stated that in the OP. You would've avoided the whole "your idea doesn't work in 5e" from me if you've made clear you're using different fluff.


I personally find the innate/granted/learned split more interesting than the physical/spiritual/arcane one.

Agreed, and it's something I've played with, though I've never tried it in actual game. My ideas included giving cleric pact magic casting, with the justification that you can channel the power of your patron/god only few times between rests, but the spell is always as powerful as you can handle (because the gods don't really care about sending only 1st level slot worth of energy, and mortals aren't really built to handle that sort of power too often), and learned magic using spellbooks (or equivalent, for druids) no matter the class. And innate casters using spell points, to make each method different from each other. Obviously, there would be balance issues. Also switching things up somewhat, so you could have learned cleric or warlock, or innate or granted druids, etc, and each method using different stat (int for learned, wis for granted, and cha for innate)

[Naanomi]

Rangers and Paladins are both complicated in this system. Clearly they have a good amount of training involved in the martial aspects of their jobs... in fact excepting spells the vast majority of ranger abilities are all just training and experience.

Even the spell casting is problematic... Paladins don’t need Gods, they draw from conviction alone... unless they don’t and Gods (or in the case of Oathbreakers, fiends) mediate. Likewise, Ranger casting may be either ‘Druidism lite’ primal stuff... but can easily also be more wizard-akin ‘enlightened nature-lore’ with no specific spirituality at all, or even (in FR) tied to a Nature God of some kind

I think fluff is too flexible, even without going full-on refluffing, for a sorting system to work as-hoc. It could easily been present if designed ‘from the ground up’ in system design, but adding it on afterwards creates these sort of forced situations which don’t add much to make it worth it

[JackPhoenix]

Rangers and Paladins are both complicated in this system. Clearly they have a good amount of training involved in the martial aspects of their jobs... in fact excepting spells the vast majority of ranger abilities are all just training and experience.

Even the spell casting is problematic... Paladins don’t need Gods, they draw from conviction alone... unless they don’t and Gods (or in the case of Oathbreakers, fiends) mediate. Likewise, Ranger casting may be either ‘Druidism lite’ primal stuff... but can easily also be more wizard-akin ‘enlightened nature-lore’ with no specific spirituality at all, or even (in FR) tied to a Nature God of some kind

I think fluff is too flexible, even without going full-on refluffing, for a sorting system to work as-hoc. It could easily been present if designed ‘from the ground up’ in system design, but adding it on afterwards creates these sort of forced situations which don’t add much to make it worth it

FR complicates things further, with all magic originating from the same source, and being filtered through the Weave. Dragonlance too, wizard magic originates in the three moon gods. Eberron is little closer, with druidic magic drawing upon Eberron, while arcane (and divine) originating from Siberys (and in some cases, Khyber)

[Naanomi]

Psionics has had a lot of fluff over the years as well... is it just evolution/mutation? Enlightened meditation? Astral influence? Far Realm corruption (or the universe’s ‘immune response’ to Far Realm corruption)? Hardly a unified answer to be found out there currently

[Millstone85]

Even the spell casting is problematic... Paladins don’t need Gods, they draw from conviction alone... unless they don’t and Gods (or in the case of Oathbreakers, fiends) mediate.The DMG and XGtE offer a few possible sources for divine spellcasting:
* a personal deity, or a pantheon
* impersonal forces of nature
* a philosophy shared by many

It seems to me that, by default, clerics go with the first option, druids with the second, and paladins with the third. In particular, I would hold paladins to the DMG's "A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person" (p13).

Regardless, it should fall under the mediated category. "These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power---gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath" (PHB p205).


FR complicates things further, with all magic originating from the same source, and being filtered through the Weave.It is also 5e's default assumption.


Psionics has had a lot of fluff over the years as well... is it just evolution/mutation? Enlightened meditation? Astral influence? Far Realm corruption (or the universe’s ‘immune response’ to Far Realm corruption)? Hardly a unified answer to be found out there currentlyThe first mystic UA used the immune response route, though more in an individual "I stayed sane when reality went mad" kind of way. But more recent UAs seem to have abandoned that in favor of enlightened meditation.

[KorvinStarmast]

While I would love for the Ranger and Druid to be "primal casters" I suppose WoTC didn't want to do that for (a?) reason. I think it would have been a great way to give the Ranger and Druid a different feel.

So it goes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I would love for the Ranger and Druid to be "primal casters" I suppose WoTC didn't want to do that for (a?) reason. I think it would have been a great way to give the Ranger and Druid a different feel.

So it goes.

To me, it seems like they did, they just didn't publicize it. All the fluff points to "using the power of nature, not really from gods" (which is the primal source in a nutshell) for both of them.

I'd chalk it up to wanting to avoid anything that would be too reminiscent of 4e. Which is sad. Because 4e (for all its issues) had some good ideas. Like this one (druids/rangers being primal not divine). The whole divine/arcane split as the fundamental difference has been a completely forced thing once druids were no longer a prestige-class-like cleric variation and there started to be more spell-casters than just clerics and wizards.

[JackPhoenix]

To me, it seems like they did, they just didn't publicize it. All the fluff points to "using the power of nature, not really from gods" (which is the primal source in a nutshell) for both of them.

I'd chalk it up to wanting to avoid anything that would be too reminiscent of 4e. Which is sad. Because 4e (for all its issues) had some good ideas. Like this one (druids/rangers being primal not divine). The whole divine/arcane split as the fundamental difference has been a completely forced thing once druids were no longer a prestige-class-like cleric variation and there started to be more spell-casters than just clerics and wizards.

Dropping the divide (completely: there's no difference between arcane and divine magic in 5e, or any other kind of magic) is a good thing. Fforcing everything into few categories is limiting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Dropping the divide (completely: there's no difference between arcane and divine magic in 5e, or any other kind of magic) is a good thing. Fforcing everything into few categories is limiting.

I have no intention of forcing anything. The categories are more like (as I said) the RGB components of color. Each actual class is a combination of all the categories. Some are like nearly pure colors (highly concentrated in one aspect); others are more like a grey (almost equal between the aspects).

[Kane0]

Agreed, and it's something I've played with, though I've never tried it in actual game. My ideas included giving cleric pact magic casting, with the justification that you can channel the power of your patron/god only few times between rests, but the spell is always as powerful as you can handle (because the gods don't really care about sending only 1st level slot worth of energy, and mortals aren't really built to handle that sort of power too often), and learned magic using spellbooks (or equivalent, for druids) no matter the class. And innate casters using spell points, to make each method different from each other. Obviously, there would be balance issues. Also switching things up somewhat, so you could have learned cleric or warlock, or innate or granted druids, etc, and each method using different stat (int for learned, wis for granted, and cha for innate)

I do like the idea of slots for prepared, points for innate and auto-scaling for granted. One casting stat for each dovetails in nicely, though i'd be tempted to play around with it just for the sake of variety.

[Millstone85]

So, in your setting, would there be a difference between a cleric losing the support of their deity and a warlock losing the support of their patron?

Going by the PHB's explanation of the arcane/divine split ("The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave" versus "These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power", p205) and its classification of the warlock as an arcane spellcaster, I would say that both the cleric and the warlock would have trouble leveling up, but the cleric would be more at risk of losing already gained features.

But your definition of a mediated access makes me think it would be all about leveling up.

[Naanomi]

Dropping the divide (completely: there's no difference between arcane and divine magic in 5e, or any other kind of magic) is a good thing. Fforcing everything into few categories is limiting.
There are still *social* differences that are recognized, some of the modules have towns that ‘forbid arcane spellcasting’ defined about how you think it would be

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, in your setting, would there be a difference between a cleric losing the support of their deity and a warlock losing the support of their patron?

Going by the PHB's explanation of the arcane/divine split ("The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave" versus "These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power", p205) and its classification of the warlock as an arcane spellcaster, I would say that both the cleric and the warlock would have trouble leveling up, but the cleric would be more at risk of losing already gained features.

But your definition of a mediated access makes me think it would be all about leveling up.

If you're talking to me, I see it as follows (I'll divide my perception of the "default" from my personal setting):

Default:
Clerics are directly mediated. If they lose support, they no longer cast spells. That is, the deity plays an active role in deciding what spells they can cast each day and how they cast them. The deity is more or less being channeled through the cleric, but the deity is the one actually doing the casting.

Warlocks are granted spells/features directly, in either a series of individual pacts or an ongoing relationship. But once the spells are granted, they're fixed. The patron can't take them back. The warlock has the knowledge to cast those spells.

My setting
Warlocks are basically the same. Fiend pacts are rarely "your soul for power," as that's a demonic thing to do, and demon-worship is strictly verboten. It's more "do this thing in exchange for that bit of knowledge" a bunch of times, sometimes with the patron building up debts. Fey are...different (more ascended heroes/ancestors/non-human "things"). GOO are mostly touched from Beyond, in the "you've awakened power without the patron really even being aware of you" mode.

Clerics have to be sponsored by a deity but "cleric-capable" people are pretty rare. So if you irritate your god enough that they don't want to support you but not enough that they really hate you, they'll let someone else take over support. As long as you're sponsored by someone up there, you get a chunk of powers (spells and domain features) direct from the Great Mechanism. Basically, you're flagged as a privileged user in the system, so you can draw power. Specific features (like the Divine Intervention feature) may work differently depending on who's actually answering those prayers.

I have a whole schismatic sect of clerics (that grew out of a player character's background) that believe they're worshiping Peor Fala (the goddess of the Hearth, whose big thing is non-violence and domesticity) by "cleansing" the area of goblins and orcs (and other "filthy" creatures). They have power, but it ain't coming from her. It's not clear if it's Pinwheel (god of deception and practical jokes) or Roel Kor (god of conquest and hierarchy) that's really sponsoring them.

[Chaosmancer]

I like these sort of ideas because of using Primal to differentiate between druidic magic and cleric magic. I've actually started trying to make some big changes to my homebrew cosmology because of the ideas that suddenly make sense.

For example:

There are no gods of nature or magic. The Spirits won't stand for the gods horning in on their turf for one, and a god of magic would literally be a "god of the fundamental threads of reality" which is just a mite to over-god for my taste.

Edit: mini rant via tangent. Didn't mean to go down this rabbit hole, but I guess I needed it off my chest. Apologies.

But the bigger things I've been running into is how... disjointed the DnD mythos is when looking for support in this.

There are no Spirits, there is barely any Fae lore to work with, even digging into 4e stuff. There is the elemental stuff, but man the base elemental planes are... Relatively featureless and boring.

Why do we have both demons and devils, I've made it work but it just seems odd sometimes. And with Demon Lords and Archdevils, plus Great Old Ones, why do we bother with Evil Gods. Seriously? How does it make enough sense to worship "the god of murdering everyone" that they get temples, but worshipping "the demon lord of murdering everyone" is somehow different?

And, looking at what historical things I know, almost nobody worshipped evil gods in history. Every instance is far more comparable to devils and demons, so if we're going to have all of them why not kick out evil gods?


And frankly, I think I have an answer, but it doesn't make sense to me. We seem to have in the game that Gods are the most powerful, and therefore for Cosmic good the be opposed we need Evil gods to fight for Cosmic Evil, but i think that is kind of dumb. Dumb because it is arbitrary, we can just give the same cosmic weight to both Archdevils and Gods and call it done, it accomplishes the same end result and just cleans things up

[Mortis_Elrod]

Interesting take. I find alot of similarities in how I place things in my own games. In my experience the Access Methods are the most important part in detailing a character's actions, so i leave this up mostly to players though i help out with examples. When it comes to source I'm very open to new out of the box ideas, so i tend not to be strict about whose power comes from where (another thing I encourage players to describe, really brings out the characters and i love it when everyone's in their characters head).


But if i had to draw some hard lines I'd probably use these.

As to Warlocks/Clerics I have some rather strong opinions on these. There are some standard rules in my campaign that i use, but exceptions are made sometimes.

-Power (access to magic) once given/learned/obtained cannot be taken away.

-Clerics do not know there spells/abilties. They are mere conduits without true understanding. They Channel power from their gods/domain/whatever. Not everyone can do it, its very taxing on the mind and even body (which is why clerics have certain martial proficiency indicating training to strengthen their body). Thus their spells/abilities can be removed by the source.

-Warlocks are either taught, given, or steal/trick knowledge of magic from their source. They get to actually wield this power, but its not the same power a sorcerer might wield. Its different because the source uses magic completely differently than a normal mortal would. This magic though can manifest in alot of ways that a wizard couldn't replicate though because of its source. Their power can't be taken back though, its now a part of the warlock.

-Paladins function similarly to clerics though their power is never truly lost when they fall, merely hidden away until they redeem themselves in the eyes of their oath.

-Druids have a connection to the natural magic and spirits that they channel much like a cleric but less taxing on the body since its coming from nature(which would know that mortals be fragile). They need not fear losing their way, for Nature's way is to evolve, its ever changing in a cycle. Druids could probably lose their power but its highly unlikely that the world itself chooses to take it back.

-Ranger's are similar to druids though they have a more intimate relationship with with physical part of nature. Ranger's do not see themselves separate from the vicious cycle of life and death. A ranger is a predator,scavenger, and sometimes prey and accepts this. Embraces the Adapt or Die lifestyle and gains power for it. They won't lose their power because their very nature is to change to survive whatever is thrown at them, whatever the cost.

[Millstone85]

If you're talking to me, I see it as followsI was, and thank you.


There are no gods of nature or magic. The Spirits won't stand for the gods horning in on their turf for one, and a god of magic would literally be a "god of the fundamental threads of reality" which is just a mite to over-god for my taste.I would treat the gods of nature as deities who happen to be druids also. There would be theological debates regarding whether they have authority over the spirits, are spokespeople for the spirits, or a little of both. Some nature "gods" would actually be archfey or primordials with that same relationship with the spirits.

And I agree that Mystra drew the one divine portfolio to rule them all, if it weren't for Ao.


Why do we have both demons and devils, I've made it work but it just seems odd sometimes. And with Demon Lords and Archdevils, plus Great Old Ones, why do we bother with Evil Gods. Seriously? How does it make enough sense to worship "the god of murdering everyone" that they get temples, but worshipping "the demon lord of murdering everyone" is somehow different?I might get flak for this, but that's why Lolth makes the most sense as an evil goddess and a demon lady.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not fond of the Evil Gods idea myself, although I do understand the idea of propitiating destructive powers (or worshiping them for power). Someone who does like murder might gravitate to the Lord of Murder--"hey, I get to do what I love and get power for it? Sweet!", but actual temples to such things might be a bit much. :smallamused:

My setting's gods are caretakers--mortals who (after death) were raised up to that position and given power over a specific domain in exchange for basically free access to the power that makes the universe go. They are responsible to the Four who run that Great Mechanism--the Four don't get involved at all with mortals. The gods aren't dependent on mortals for worship, but since their power ultimately comes from mortals (as all power comes from creatures growing, learning, and developing), and they're limited (by the Four and each other) in how much they can get involved, they use mortals in their schemes and plans.

None of them are Evil (although a few of them aren't very nice people). "How to deal with mortals" is a wedge issue among the gods (and the devils, and the angels, and the other ascended beings). Some want to actively guide mortals to "greater good/prosperity/etc" (as they define it); others are hands-off and just want to limit the damage that mortals do but let them choose for themselves a bit more. Others just don't care about mortals.



Deception/Practical jokes/Change
Untimely death/political stability/assassination
Beauty/Music/Sexuality
Arcane Magic/Knowledge/Secrets (responsible for making sure mortals don't break things again like they did in the past)
Timely death/endings/winter
Peace/Domesticity/Altruism/Children
Sun/honorable warfare/loyalty/summer
Harvest/agriculture/work/contracts
growth/beginnings/spring/fertility
Forge/technology/creation
Earth/mountains/endurance
Oceans/cold/storms/disasters
Wilderness/travelers/hunting
Justice/law/order
Tyranny/control/power/hierarchy
Commerce/wealth/luck



Even the ones who provide the Nature domain aren't really in charge of the spirits--they're more high-level concerns. The spirits are (and don't have rulers). The gods maintain the cycle of nature, whereas the spirits are more centered on their own small-scale concerns.

Heck, even the devils and demons aren't necessarily evil. Some are, some aren't--the demons are the closest to being evil (most of their cultists certainly are) but some just have goals that would overturn the nature of reality or are willing to use means that pose significant risk to reality.

Two societies have very few (if any) clerics whatsoever--one where all the religious figures (if statted as PCs) would be Celestial Warlocks or bards, with a few clerics of a couple of the other gods hanging around. They worship an ascended mortal, the Queen Ascendant. She actually does depend on worship (since she doesn't have the direct connection that the gods do) and is more free to act, but is more limited in power (and can't make clerics since that requires the privileges of a god). Another society reveres ancestors (some of whom are similar to, if less powerful than the Queen Ascendant) and the spirits of nature--they're mostly druidic/shamanistic. They acknowledge the existence of the gods, they just don't think they're worth worshiping.

But my cosmology is significantly non-standard, and I make no pretenses about that.

[Naanomi]

Evil Gods tend to be ‘other people’s Gods’ that perhaps got absorbed into your own mythology... Set in Egyptian mythology for example, and perhaps Tezcatlipoca. In DnD Cosmology, outside of FR especially, the most prominent evil Gods are the gods of the various evil races (Tiamat, Gruumsh, Lolth, etc)

[Millstone85]

I think there are four main approaches to godhood in fantasy:

* Cosmic clockmakers.
Gods are the beings who first set the universe into motion. They know its purpose.

* Cosmic cogwheels.
Gods are one with their portfolios. To hurt them is to damage the universe itself.

* Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from divinity.
Gods are the most powerful beings around. They are prayed to for help or mercy.

* Collective tulpas.
Gods are powered by faith. Many gods were even created by faith to begin with.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Several might be true for a single group of gods, or a setting could have several types of gods. I especially like the idea that some gods go around creating worlds, each time leaving that world in the hands of lesser gods that were created as part of it.

[Justin Sane]

I'm not fond of the Evil Gods idea myself, although I do understand the idea of propitiating destructive powers (or worshiping them for power). Someone who does like murder might gravitate to the Lord of Murder--"hey, I get to do what I love and get power for it? Sweet!", but actual temples to such things might be a bit much. :smallamused:
"Oh Great God of Killing People In Their Sleep, please accept this humble tribute as proof I deserve to see the next sunrise."

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Oh Great God of Killing People In Their Sleep, please accept this humble tribute as proof I deserve to see the next sunrise."

Yeah, I can understand propitiation; there's a god in my setting that basically isn't worshipped but only propitiated so she stays far away.