Spellcasting classes, how are they diffferent

[Fynzmirs]

One question I get asked constantly as a DM is what's the difference between spellcasting classes (especially the warlock). I've decided to post here how I understand each class on a principal level because I want to know whether other players and DMs have a similiar opinion on that topic.

To explain, I will compare spellcasting to fishing.

Divine classes (cleric, druid, paladin and ranger) don't really know how to cast spells, the spells are bestowed on them.

Divine classes don't have fishing poles. They are given a certain amount of fish.

Clerics (and Paladins who worship gods) get their fish from their gods, who may issue some demands in return.

Druids (and other divine spellcasters who don't worship any gods but an idea) find their fish in the same place every morning. They have never met a guardian of that place (if there is a one) but if they stop following the rules of that particular place they stop finding their fish.

Sorcerers are the original arcane spellcasting class. They have innate magical properties and basically are magical creatures.

They are born with a special fishing pole which enables them to gather their own fish. They have no idea how it works or how to build one but it's almost impossible to take it away from them. The knowledge of how to use the fishing pole comes from their instincts.

Wizards are normal mortals who observed Sorcerers and wanted to imitate them. They learn how to access the magic around them but they don't become magical creatures.

Wizards don't have their fishing poles but they are able to fish. They are trying to do what the sorcerers are doing, using whatever they can find and constantly invent new ways of fishing. They observe how the fishes behave, use sticks or self-made spears to catch them. They haven't found a way to create an actual fishing pole but they understand how their tools work and may one day manage to not only recreate the sorcerers' fishing poles but possibly even surpass them.

Warlocks are not given their spells by their patrons but are given the ability to cast them. Once this is done patrons cannot just stop giving them spells because warlocks already know how to cast them. Warlocks BECOME magical creatures, pseudosorcerers, thanks to their patrons.

As an arcane class, warlocks are not given their fish but are instead obtaining them by themselves. They don't start with a fishing rod nor try to build one themselves. Instead they have a patron give one to them. Patrons also teach them how to use it, but warlocks (jus as sorcerers) have no idea why their fishing poles work that way. Once they have been given a fishing pole they are as connected to it as sorcerers and the patron cannot just take it away any easier than from a sorcerer (although it's theoretically still possible, just as with sorcers). Patrons can also give them some extra fish in the form of invocations.

When it comes to advancement, each arcane class improve their abilities in a slightly different way. Sorcerers explore their own abilities by instinct and study, mastering their fishing poles. Wizards improve their spellcasting by inventing new ways to access magic or learing them from fellow wizards.

Warlocks have a harder time advancing. Some try to explore their gift, but it's much harder without sorcerers' intuiton. They don't understand their magic on the same level as wizards so finding new powers via logical analysis is also very difficult. Their only optimal way of learing is being taught by their patrons. That's why a warlock without a patron does not loose his powers but is unable to advance until he finds a different source of knowledge.

I have left the Bards on the end because I think of them as real Jacks of All Trades. They have some innate power mixed with a bit of wizard-like study (the ratio differs from bard to bard). They are basically weaker sorcerers who have learned some real-life skills.

It ties well with spellcasting abilities.

Divine classes just need to follow certain rules and they don't care much about magic itself. Thus, WISDOM (as in - ability to uderstand what the gods want and apply their ideals to a situation in the best way possible).

Sorcers, warlocks and most bards are using their innate (or in case of warlocks, pseudo-innate) powers. Innate magical abilities come from the innate sense of self-conciousness. Thus, CHARISMA.

Wizards try to understands the laws of magic and use them for their benefit. Thus, INTELLIGENCE.

Paladins should be Wisdom-based as well. However, they used to have certain non-spellcasting abilities dependant on Charisma and required high Str, Dex, and Con in order to be able to be comparable at fighting to fighters. This MADness caused a purely mechanical decision to tie their spellcasting abilities to Charisma (which I understand).

Do you agree with my interpretation? Or do you have a different opinion on this subject?

[Anymage]

Thematically, I don't think most people have any difference telling the difference between a druid and a warlock.

Rather, I think a new player looking at all these options doesn't fully grasp how the different magical types play at the table. Which is useful (this guy buffs and heals, this guy can zap all day and still do respectable damage, this guy can cast spells but is happier turning into a bear, etc.), but doesn't really care about the in-universe explanations about how their magic works.

[Fynzmirs]

On the contrary, I tend to find more people who wonder how the cleric is different from a warlock on the conceptual level. Differencies in role and mechanics are clearly laid out in the handbook.

[Devils_Advocate]

One question I get asked constantly as a DM is what's the difference between spellcasting classes (especially the warlock).
Normal spellcasters get several spell slots of various levels that recharge after a long rest. The Warlock gets a few spell slots all of the same level that recharge after a short or long rest.


Divine classes (cleric, druid, paladin and ranger) don't really know how to cast spells
Casting a spell is a voluntary action for all of the classes (although wild mages have less control over the exact outcome). They all know how to cast spells. They may not know how they cast spells, but they know how to cast spells. (Someone who rides a bicycle plainly knows how to ride a bicycle, whether or not they have any understanding of the forces that keep the bicycle stable.)


Divine classes don't have fishing poles. They are given a certain amount of fish.
Clerics and Druids cast spells just like other classes do. If spellcasting is fishing, then Clerics and Druids totally fish. They aren't limited to producing magical effects by means other than casting spells.

You really need to get this analogy straightened out before you can use it to clarify anything. Right now it comes across as so much nonsensical babbling, quite frankly. Like, establish some sort of extended metaphor where e.g. spell slots are bait*, prepared/known spells are different types of fishing gear needed for catching different types of fish, and cast spells are caught fish.

*Bigger bait allows you to catch a bigger fish! Straightforward and intuitive, right?

Honestly, even then, I don't see how it helps to talk about fish and fishing instead of spells and spellcasting. Trying to force a comparison between two different things seems like it overcomplicates a discussion that could just be a description of the one thing, y'know?


Sorcerers are the original arcane spellcasting class.
Nah, that'd be Magic-Users. Essentially Wizards, although the 5E Wizard is fairly removed from its origins at this point. That's why "arcane spellcasters" are called that. Only Wizard spellcasting is particularly arcane, as Wizard spell preparation is esoteric in nature.

Similarly, there's nothing particularly divine about Druid and especially Ranger spellcasting.

Pretty weird of you to say that Sorcerers and Warlocks have "fishing poles" when Wizards are the ones who use a particular type of item in order to be able to cast their spells. Obviously "having a fishing pole" is supposed to be a metaphor for something else, then, but darned if I know what!

[Fynzmirs]

Normal spellcasters get several spell slots of various levels that recharge after a long rest. The Warlock gets a few spell slots all of the same level that recharge after a short or long rest.

I understand that. I was talking about concepts and fluff, not mechanics.



Casting a spell is a voluntary action for all of the classes (although wild mages have less control over the exact outcome). They all know how to cast spells. They may not know how they cast spells, but they know how to cast spells. (Someone who rides a bicycle plainly knows how to ride a bicycle, whether or not they have any understanding of the forces that keep the bicycle stable.)


Clerics and Druids cast spells just like other classes do. If spellcasting is fishing, then Clerics and Druids totally fish. They aren't limited to producing magical effects by means other than casting spells.

They do use spells, because they have been given them. They are not able to obtain more spells unless they are given more. That's what defines divine classes.


You really need to get this analogy straightened out before you can use it to clarify anything. Right now it comes across as so much nonsensical babbling, quite frankly. Like, establish some sort of extended metaphor where e.g. spell slots are bait*, prepared/known spells are different types of fishing gear needed for catching different types of fish, and cast spells are caught fish.

*Bigger bait allows you to catch a bigger fish! Straightforward and intuitive, right?


A single fish is a single spell. Talking in FR terms, a river is the Weave. Arcane spellcasters access the Weave one way or another, while divine spellcasters get their spells from deities/ideas. Logically, their spells also come from the Weave, but it's their god who accesses the Weave for the cleric, not the cleric himself.


Honestly, even then, I don't see how it helps to talk about fish and fishing instead of spells and spellcasting. Trying to force a comparison between two different things seems like it overcomplicates a discussion that could just be a description of the one thing, y'know?

Using metaphores is a common practice when explaining difficult subjects. It's quite common to find a person who doesn't understand the difference between the warlock and the cleric.


Nah, that'd be Magic-Users. Essentially Wizards, although the 5E Wizard is fairly removed from its origins at this point. That's why "arcane spellcasters" are called that. Only Wizard spellcasting is particularly arcane, as Wizard spell preparation is esoteric in nature.

Except "Magic-User" is not a class anymore and sorcerers seem to be an older casting tradition than wizards. Yes, I know there was no sorcerer before 3e, but again, I'm talking about in-universe chronology.


Similarly, there's nothing particularly divine about Druid and especially Ranger spellcasting.

I grew up in a 3e-heavy environment and for me they are divine. It was the third edition which started categorizing magic so it's safe to use the famous "arcane/divine" division.


Pretty weird of you to say that Sorcerers and Warlocks have "fishing poles" when Wizards are the ones who use a particular type of item in order to be able to cast their spells. Obviously "having a fishing pole" is supposed to be a metaphor for something else, then, but darned if I know what!

It's supposed to mean that they have a natural access to magic. It's not an item, it's something they are born with.

I hope I clarified my first post and that we are one step closer towards understanding each other.

[Zetakya]

I don't understand the "Fish" thing.

There's a continuum in how the different Spellcasters get and cast their Spells. At one end is the Cleric, who is granted their magic by a divine figure, and are expected to use that divine magic to advance the aims of that divine figure.

Right at the other end is the Wizard, who learns their Spells by research, experimentation or (quite often in the case of adventurers) plagiarising or outright stealing spells from other casters research and experimentation.

Between these are a variety of different methods. Sorcerers are simply strong-willed enough to persuade the universe to do things their way, often aided by powers latent in their ancestry. "Oh course everything should be on fire", says the Sorcerer, "for my grandfather was a dragon, and therefore I am a dragon and everything should burn".

Bards simply make reality, and those within it, dance to their tune for a while.

Paladins turn their Oaths into divine power, seeking to advance a cause by their magic.

Druids and Rangers channel their magic from the force of nature rather than a divine figure, but are otherwise very similar to Clerics.

[Millstone85]

I grew up in a 3e-heavy environment and for me they are divine. It was the third edition which started categorizing magic so it's safe to use the famous "arcane/divine" division.All the more so since that division is in the 5e PHB.

Anyhow, here is my interpretation, which largely overlaps with yours.

In addition to material, somatic or verbal components, casting a spell requires the ability to mentally touch magic.


The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding--learned or intuitive--of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic.Arcane classes do this without help. It is almost entirely intuitive for sorcerers, and almost entirerly learned for wizards, with bards and warlocks falling somewhere in between.

For warlocks, the "without help" part is relative. The made a bargain for magical power, which was given to them as a mix of hidden knowledge and something akin to a blood transfusion. They likely still need the help of their patron to level up in this class. But the power they already possess can be used without help.


The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. 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.
The power of a philosophy stems from the belief that mortals invest in it. A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person.Divine spellcasters rely on the help of the divine. This is an ungoing connection, and severing it would leave the character unable to cast spells. Clerics typically draw power from one or several gods, druids and rangers from the myriad spirits of nature, and paladins from a philosophy called an oath.

In all cases, the divine entity relies in turn on the power directed to it through collective faith. The Oath of Redemption would be worthless if only a handful of people put credence in redemption as an ideal worth pursuing.

[JumboWheat01]

Cleric and Warlock are indeed pretty similar. Both are in service to an extraplanar being and are given power for their services. The main difference is the extraplanar beings can revoke a Cleric's power and access to said power, while the only way to remove the power from a Warlock is by killing said Warlock. ((Insert Druid, Paladins and Rangers here instead of Clerics if you're playing on the Realms because Realms divine magic requirements.))

Cleric and Druids are another pair, both are essentially priests to the forces they server, a deity or nature, and in the Realms are even more similar since they both have to server gods of some type. Their spell access are different, but their methods of gaining them are the same (prayer at a certain point of the day or in a certain location,) but it's they're non-spell abilities that differ them greatly.

Sorcerers and Wizards are the next pair, the former being natural talent the later being hard studies. The primary difference is that no matter how hard a sorcerer tries, they could never teach another sorcerer the same spells unless that sorcerer has the innate talent to cast them, while a wizard can teach another wizard any of their spells provide the latter has studied enough. At a glance though, good luck telling the two apart unless the latter has their book out and obvious.

Paladins and Rangers are the next pair, both the more martial version of another pair (Cleric and Druids respectively,) and just like that pair, they have differing spell lists that enhance their rather different approach to things. Paladins are the knight, obvious, not flinching, ever moving forwards, while Rangers are the stalker, hidden, planning and preparing.

Artificers and Wizards are another pair, they get their magic through hard study, though they focus on it entirely different ways. Wizards care more about the effects of a spell while Artificers care more about the mechanics of it.

Bards are pretty odd beasts. They have some innate talent like Sorcerers, but can be taught like Wizards, their magic comes from something that infuses the world like a Cleric's or Druids, and includes spells that are decidedly Divine and also definitely Arcane, coupled with their non-spell abilities. A little bit of everything, just how a Bard likes it.

[HPisBS]

...
Sorcerers and Wizards are the next pair, the former being natural talent the later being hard studies. The primary difference is that no matter how hard a sorcerer tries, they could never teach another sorcerer the same spells unless that sorcerer has the innate talent to cast them, while a wizard can teach another wizard any of their spells provide the latter has studied enough. At a glance though, good luck telling the two apart unless the latter has their book out and obvious.
...

I dunno, being covered by a thin sheen of dragon-like scales or almost never blinking seem like some pretty clear signs lol

[kazaryu]

Cleric and Warlock are indeed pretty similar. Both are in service to an extraplanar being and are given power for their services. The main difference is the extraplanar beings can revoke a Cleric's power and access to said power, while the only way to remove the power from a Warlock is by killing said Warlock. ((Insert Druid, Paladins and Rangers here instead of Clerics if you're playing on the Realms because Realms divine magic requirements.))

.

this is an entirely untrue statement. There is absolutely no guaranteed stipulation of service as a warlock. a warlock *might* agree to ongoing service. But they don't have to. This is actually a very big difference at a base level. The cleric gets their power because they worship their god, and *want* to further their gods agenda. A warlock gets their power because they agreed to some kind of trade. The warlock doesn't *need* to have an inherent investment in the beings goals.

[Millstone85]

There is absolutely no guaranteed stipulation of service as a warlock. a warlock *might* agree to ongoing service. But they don't have to.That should logically be the case, as the bargain for power could be fully completed before the adventure starts.

Unfortunately, the PHB seems to entirely miss that possibility.
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity [...] More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf.
As you make your warlock character, spend some time thinking about your patron and the obligations that your pact imposes upon you. [...] Do you chafe under the obligations of your pact or serve joyfully in anticipation of the rewards promised to you? [...] Your patron's demands might drive you into adventures, or they might consist entirely of small favors you can do between adventures. [...] Do you know other servants of your patron?
At 3rd level, your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service. That's why, at the risk of further encouraging warlock dips, I think that a new trade must be made every warlock level.

To make things worse, the past-bargain option gets mentioned, but for other classes.
Perhaps you stumbled into the clutches of a hag, making a bargain for a musical gift in addition to your life and freedom, but at what cost?
Most often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon or who might even have claimed a dragon parent. [...] Any given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline, as a result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance.

[Christew]

I get what you are trying to accomplish, but the fishing metaphor just makes things more confusing. Just explain the differences between the classes. It is spelled out pretty clearly in multiple places in the PHB.

[Man_Over_Game]

PHB p205, The Weave of Magic

The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. 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.

The power of a philosophy stems from the belief that mortals invest in it. A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person.

Paladins draw power from a philosophy that requires additional belief in order to fuel it, while also being a Divine Caster. Gods and Nature are also often a focus for faith.

What's funny about this is that this almost implies that Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Paladins all have "made-belief" idols that gather their prayers to generate power. I believe it's true, so it is (akin to the Planescape universe, or the Rifts TTRPG).

This would mean that the primary differences between divine casters and Warlocks is that Warlocks actually follow an actually living being, while everyone else believes really hard in mob-mentality fairy tales. Other Arcane Casters draw power from available ambient energy or SCIENCE, different from Divines because their power source isn't powered by faith.

I think I like this interpretation and cosmology more than the original. Feels a lot darker and realistic for a mostly-agnostic table. Thanks for the inspiration!

[prabe]

Seems pretty well-thought-out to me, though the metaphor does seem a little strained in places.

[Millstone85]

What's funny about this is that this almost implies that Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Paladins all have "made-belief" idols that gather their prayers to generate power. I believe it's true, so it is (akin to the Planescape universe, or the Rifts TTRPG).That's because it is the Planescape universe. Maybe not exactly as you remember it, what with the quasi-elemental planes not being a thing, the domains of dread being part of the Shadowfell, and other edition retcons, but it is.


This would mean that the primary differences between divine casters and Warlocks is that Warlocks actually follow an actually living being, while everyone else believes really hard in mob-mentality fairy tales.You could put celeslocks and fiendlocks under the make-believe category, since their patrons are manifestations of the collective faith in ideals of good, evil, law and chaos.

I would rule that a paladin can't meet their oath, but they can visit it. It is a place on one of the Outer Planes, or floating in the Astral.

[Man_Over_Game]

You could put celeslocks and fiendlocks under the make-believe category, since their patrons are manifestations of the collective faith in ideals of good, evil, law and chaos.

I'd disagree with that. The things the Warlock usually draws from are byproducts of those collections of faiths. That is, they aren't worshing Hell, but a byproduct of Hell. A living, breathing creature that has qualities specific to Hell, with Hell being the "Divine source" that draws all that 'faith'.

Alternatively, it could be that "Faith" isn't what grants you that power. "Faith" is a two-way street, while Arcane power is simply just "power" that a powerful being happens to be shooting at you. You don't have to believe in a Fiend for him to throw money at you. You could have an Agnostic Warlock, but probably not an Agnostic Cleric.

[Devils_Advocate]

I understand that. I was talking about concepts and fluff, not mechanics.
Well, I'd hope for some sort of connection between the Warlock class's unusual flavor and unusual rules. I don't see any sense in a class having fluff and crunch that are totally dissociated from each other.


A single fish is a single spell.
In what sense of "spell"? Do you mean a prepared or known spell or a cast spell? Or a spell slot?

Someone can "prepare fireball" and "have" that "spell" without ever casting it. Is that a fish, or is the later production of a goodness gracious big ball of fire a fish? And whichever one of those is analogous to a fish, what's the other one analogous to?

If you established some sort of one to one correspondence between aspects of fishing and aspects of spellcasting, that would be a lot more useful than "fish are spells". As it is, I'm not alone in my "WTF" reaction. Does anyone else think that this is a useful metaphor at this point? It's not clear to me that it even qualifies as a metaphor yet, except insofar as saying that a thing is a different thing is always a metaphor.


It was the third edition which started categorizing magic so it's safe to use the famous "arcane/divine" division.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I don't think that's right. My understanding is the following:

In the beginning, there were "Wizards" (not yet called that) and Clerics. Other classes and subclasses were then given modified access to Wizard spellcasting and Cleric spellcasting. Spellcasters who used Cleric spellcasting were divine spellcasters who got their spells from the gods, and spellcasters who used Wizard spellcasting were arcane spellcasters who got their spells from spellbooks.

Then classes were given there own spell lists and charisma-based spellcasting, and, most notably, weren't limited to either getting their spells from divine or arcane sources. But apparently, someone decided that spellcasting should still be split up into "arcane" and "divine", even though that made no particular sense. So the previous distinction persisted, but at this point it was some phoney baloney.

You can try to "fluff up" some commonalities between "arcane spellcasters" and between "divine spellcasters", of course. You can also try to contrive an in-universe explanation for Paladin spellcasting being Charisma-based (which honestly makes more sense than some of their magic relying on Charisma and some on Wisdom, if you ask me).

I'd suggest the compromise of giving "divine" spellcasters common fluff and saying that "arcane spellcasting" is a catch-all for spellcasting that isn't divine. That's pretty accurate, right? Spellcasting basically defaults to being "arcane" without much in the way any specific fluff being required?


It's supposed to mean that they have a natural access to magic.
Ranger spellcasting seems more natural than Warlock. Warlock spellcasting seems at least as artificial as anyone else's.


It's not an item, it's something they are born with.
Well, yeah, that's the problem. If fishing is metaphorical spellcasting, then shouldn't an item used for fishing should correspond to an item used for spellcasting?


What's funny about this is that this almost implies that Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Paladins all have "made-belief" idols that gather their prayers to generate power. I believe it's true, so it is (akin to the Planescape universe, or the Rifts TTRPG).

This would mean that the primary differences between divine casters and Warlocks is that Warlocks actually follow an actually living being, while everyone else believes really hard in mob-mentality fairy tales. Other Arcane Casters draw power from available ambient energy or SCIENCE, different from Divines because their power source isn't powered by faith.
Could you explain what you mean by "actually living", and why you think that it's incompatible with being a product of belief?

Gods created by mortal belief do exist. If they never existed, they weren't created, by belief or otherwise.


I think I like this interpretation and cosmology more than the original. Feels a lot darker and realistic for a mostly-agnostic table. Thanks for the inspiration!
Saying that deities don't exist is atheistic, not agnostic, isn't it?


The things the Warlock usually draws from are byproducts of those collections of faiths.
Yeah, that's the type of manifestation of faith that they are.

[Man_Over_Game]

Could you explain what you mean by "actually living", and why you think that it's incompatible with being a product of belief?

Gods created by mortal belief do exist. If they never existed, they weren't created, by belief or otherwise.


Saying that deities don't exist is atheistic, not agnostic, isn't it?


Yeah, that's the type of manifestation of faith that they are.

Sure!

As we've seen in some content, like Tyranny of Dragons, simply killing a deity doesn't really kill them. Through rituals and whatnot, she manages to manifest herself on the world, just to be defeated by the players (like she was defeated many, many eons ago). If Tiamat continued to be believed in, sure enough she'd pick herself back up and rain terror down on the world once again for another plucky group of adventures to smite her.

The point is, she gains power from 'faith' and those rituals. As long as that continues, there's no reason for her to cease existing. She doesn't "breathe". She doesn't "survive". From what I can tell, she might not even have free will. Just a construct of desires from a bunch of depressed and angry Dragons who are upset that the world wasn't their birth-rite. Once enough of that "faith" gathers, she is reborn and answers those prayers that call for her Tyranny... again.

Kelemvor is a pretty solid example of what I mean. Once upon a time, he was a goody-two-shoes Fighter who did some heavy stuff and ended up defeating the old God of the Dead and assumed the position. He used to try to constantly be a good guy in that position, until he eventually settled into the realization that he was no longer mortal. He has no right thinking like one. He was a God, and he had a God's responsibilities, and nothing about "living" was relevant to that. Pity and empathy became something foreign to him. He wasn't depressed, just honest with himself. If anyone was a "living being" as a Deity, it'd be Kelemvor, and yet, he chooses to no longer be alive. Not not dead, either. Nope, he's just the "Aspect of Death" now. That's his name, his personality, his job. He's nothing more than that.

Even in the example of Midnight becoming Mystra, we don't associate her much with the name Midnight. In 5e, we call her Mystra. The original story had Midnight take over Mystra's name in order to make the transition easier in the grand scheme of things, but that is just another solid example of the individuality of a deity being irrelevant.

Deities exist as manifestations of domains, not the other way around. Kelemvor didn't become a God of Death, he just took over the role. It's the title that gave him power and stripped away his personality. It's the title that gives him power and that people worship. Titles aren't living.

However, something like Kelemvor's land of the dead can still have real impact. In this case, he collects souls to keep them from ravaging the mortal realm, and to keep them from being damage during the transition into their afterlives. Something like Hell might be an entity of 'faith', and while it itself doesn't really have its own free will or mortality, the demons born from it do.



Saying that deities don't exist is atheistic, not agnostic, isn't it?
I guess a better way of putting it is that just because a Deity "exists" doesn't mean it's alive or exists beyond a collection of faith. Divine magic could come directly from these collections, where Arcane power could come from a byproduct of the Deity (such as a Celestial Warlock's pact with a Positive Plane's Unicorn or one of Hell's fiends).

However, I think the important distinction from it is that a Warlock's Patron doesn't benefit from the Warlock's faith, while Divine magic sources do. It makes a sense from a mechanical sense, considering most healing spells are Divine magic, and Divine magic in this made-up cosmology originates from living creatures.

[Millstone85]

Deities exist as manifestations of domains, not the other way around. Kelemvor didn't become a God of Death, he just took over the role. It's the title that gave him power and stripped away his personality. It's the title that gives him power and that people worship. Titles aren't living.Things might have gone differently if Kelemvor had established a stronger cult of personality. Then he would receive both faith in Death and faith in Kelemvor.

I have only read snippets of his adventures, but one was particularly telling. Kelemvor had destroyed the Wall of the Faithless and was now interviewing the soul of a warrior who had taken that as a reason to reject his gods and throw himself in a battle he could not win.
"But when you saw that you would die and fail anyway, still you held on. Why?"
"Nothing to fear... in death." Zale kept his blazing head bowed toward the sword. "Brave man in life... sure to receive reward in death."
"But you are Faithless! Who will reward you?"
For the first time, Zale raised his fiery head. "You... Lord Kelemvor! Trust your justice... before any god... who demands flattery... and offerings."

Uh, how is that man Faithless? He clearly became a Kelemvorite. And is the concept of self-sacrifice, inspired by faith in one's god, really such a novelty in the Realms? It sounds to me that Kelemvor might ultimately have lost himself in the job, even donning a silver mask, because he lacked the whale-sized ego that is basic health for a god.


However, something like Kelemvor's land of the dead can still have real impact. In this case, he collects souls to keep them from ravaging the mortal realm.Is that what the Fugue Plane is for? I thought it was just Ao's spit in the face of how the afterlife normally works in the Great Wheel.

[Man_Over_Game]

Is that what the Fugue Plane is for? I thought it was just Ao's spit in the face of how the afterlife normally works in the Great Wheel.

I didn't mean the plane itself, I meant his city.

The only souls that Kelemvor actively collects are the souls of Atheists to build the wall that surrounds the city (the same wall he ironically destroyed as a human), or the small flock of followers he's begrudgingly responsible for. Everyone else in his City is either there temporarily to get picked up by their God (standard death operating procedure), or ended up getting stuck there from as a byproduct of a broken system, like a kidney stone.

Demons sometimes attempt to raid the city. Stealing a brick that was once an Atheist would cause a lot less damage than stealing someone who felt betrayed by the Gods.

[JumboWheat01]

I thought that Kelemvor still doesn't like the Wall, but keeps it up anyway because it is a necessity.

[Man_Over_Game]

I thought that Kelemvor still doesn't like the Wall, but keeps it up anyway because it is a necessity.

What's the difference? Nothing Kelemvor has done or become after becoming God of Death was what he wanted, despite all of it being his choice.

[Devils_Advocate]

I was looking through some old threads recently, and found one on the subject of arcane and divine magic (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?418220-What-is-the-differance-between-arcane-and-divine-magic-in-d-amp-d-Should-bards-heal). Another thread touched on the subject of classification and how classification works in practice:


Reminds me of the episode of QI where we learned about Big-Eyed Wolf-Spiders. Apparently there's a subspecies which has no eyes. It's called the No-Eyed Big-Eyed Wolf-Spider. Because if it did have eyes then they would be big ones.
I wouldn't worry too hard about getting everything straightened out. It's probably possible to give a setting taxonomy that makes too much sense to be realistic.


As we've seen in some content, like Tyranny of Dragons, simply killing a deity doesn't really kill them.
Don't at least some fiends do the whole "reforms on its home plane when killed" thing?


She doesn't "breathe". She doesn't "survive".
Ah, so you meant literally living in the biological sense? Is Tiamat really established as a non-organism any more than fiends and celestials?

But I think that what you may be getting at is the idea that deities in 5E normally are not present in locations; e.g. that they're just especially powerful "vestiges", to borrow from 3rd Edition. Now, 4E made that change, but 5E generally seems to have rolled things back to be more "old school", and especially to have done away with most of 4E's setting changes. And particularly with the outright reintroduction of the original Outer Planes, I'd expect for there to once again be divine realms with Powers in residence.


From what I can tell, she might not even have free will.
As a rule of thumb, "free will" is a needlessly vague phrase to use unless you don't know what you mean.


Something like Hell might be an entity of 'faith', and while it itself doesn't really have its own free will or mortality, the demons born from it do.
First off, this is D&D. Devils are from Hell; demons are from the Abyss. Secondly, entities with hard-coded alignments seem to be more commonly described as lacking free will, and whose alignment is more hard-coded than an alignment exemplar's? If anything, isn't their status as embodiments of the abstract more established in the lore?

If anything, I should think that unique archfiends are the ones with more individual personality than yet another pit fiend or balor. And given that the Demon Queen of Spiders and the supreme devil are deities... well.

Fiends also "aren't mortals". Sure, they can die, but so can gods. Part of a god may persist after that god's death... but that's true of humans, too!


I thought that Kelemvor still doesn't like the Wall, but keeps it up anyway because it is a necessity.
What's it necessary for, and what makes that so important?

Making gods dependent on mortal worship clearly wasn't just a matter of forcing them to responsibly manage their portfolios for mortals' sake. If it were, it would make no sense to use the Wall of the Faithless to coerce mortals to worship deities whether they thought that they deserved worship or not. Obviously what Ao wants is for mortals to worship the gods, and he manipulates both gods and mortals in order to make that happen. Why does he want that so much, though? Is that just how he likes things, or does it serve some other purpose?

[Millstone85]

But I think that what you may be getting at is the idea that deities in 5E normally are not present in locations; e.g. that they're just especially powerful "vestiges", to borrow from 3rd Edition. Now, 4E made that change, but 5E generally seems to have rolled things back to be more "old school", and especially to have done away with most of 4E's setting changes. And particularly with the outright reintroduction of the original Outer Planes, I'd expect for there to once again be divine realms with Powers in residence.I don't remember that about 4e gods, but perhaps I missed it. What I know is that the Outer Planes were replaced by drifting astral dominions, most of which were divine realms.

Now, according to the 5e DMG page 11, "lesser deities are embodied somewhere in the planes" and "such deities can be encountered by mortals". If I understand correctly, this implies that greater deities are not physically present in the planes, except when "on very rare occasions they manifest avatars similar to lesser deities".

Of note is that greater deities are also said to be "almost always removed from direct involvement in mortal affairs". Between the DMG and the MM, examples of lesser deities include Asmodeus, Bahamut, Lolth, Sekolah and Tiamat. This makes me think that what 5e calls a greater deity is what previous editions would call an overpower. Do those even need faith?

The DMG also says that "vestiges are deities who have lost nearly all their worshipers and are considered dead from a mortal perspective". It later mentions "the petrified corpse of a dead god" as something that can be occasionally stumbled upon in the Astral Plane, while MToF says that the one githyanki built their city on sometimes has tremors and it "suggests that some spark of life might still linger deep within". So I guess vestiges are embodied as well.

Explaining divine magic sure gets complicated. Not that I dislike it.


First off, this is D&D. Devils are from Hell; demons are from the Abyss.Hmm, I am going to sound pedantic, but this is something I have been wondering about ever since I played Baldur's Gate 2. Baator has nine hells, but does it mean that no other lower plane can use the word? Similarly, are there no heavens but the seven found on Mount Celestia, and no paradises but the twin ones of Bytopia?

[PhantomSoul]

Hmm, I am going to sound pedantic, but this is something I have been wondering about ever since I played Baldur's Gate 2. Baator has nine hells, but does it mean that no other lower plane can use the word? Similarly, are there no heavens but the seven found on Mount Celestia, and no paradises but the twin ones of Bytopia?

I tend to imagine that (in-world) it's a bit like cases where there's a technical term that sounds like a normal word but has a different/specific meaning. The mechanical descriptions probably don't reflect how people describe everything in-world (probably barring narrow cases, e.g. a Paladin who gets contracts to hunt and kill fiendish creatures).

The characters might even reverse it if they have medium amounts of knowledge; a devil is a truthful but deceptive demon-y creature or a devil is a demon-y creature you make pacts/deals with.

[Devils_Advocate]

Of note is that greater deities are also said to be "almost always removed from direct involvement in mortal affairs". Between the DMG and the MM, examples of lesser deities include Asmodeus, Bahamut, Lolth, Sekolah and Tiamat. This makes me think that what 5e calls a greater deity is what previous editions would call an overpower.
That's my thinking as well.


Do those even need faith?
"Greater deities are beyond mortal understanding." We aren't capable of understanding their needs or even whether they have needs. (Unless we're not mortals. Ooh! Surprise twist!)


The DMG also says that "vestiges are deities who have lost nearly all their worshipers and are considered dead from a mortal perspective". It later mentions "the petrified corpse of a dead god" as something that can be occasionally stumbled upon in the Astral Plane, while MToF says that the one githyanki built their city on sometimes has tremors and it "suggests that some spark of life might still linger deep within". So I guess vestiges are embodied as well.
That spark of life isn't necessarily a vestige. There is setting precedent for separable "soul pieces"; see speak with dead.

Anyway, the impression that I got was that vestiges in 3E "didn't exist" primarily in the sense of not being located anywhere, and that's the aspect of them that I intended to reference. (They may also have required the invitation of "existent" entities to be able to act on anything. Could they do anything without binders?)


Hmm, I am going to sound pedantic, but this is something I have been wondering about ever since I played Baldur's Gate 2. Baator has nine hells, but does it mean that no other lower plane can use the word? Similarly, are there no heavens but the seven found on Mount Celestia, and no paradises but the twin ones of Bytopia?
I assumed that capitalized "Hell" with no article -- not "a hell" or even "the Hell", but just "Hell" -- refers to Baator. One could intend it to refer to the Lower Planes as a whole, I suppose; being able to take the River Styx from Pandemonium to Acheron* does imply that they are, in at least one practical sense, one very large continuous region. But that usage would almost certainly mark one as a clueless prime.

*In theory. Good luck with that journey.

[RedMage125]

On the topic of spellcasting classes...

As far as Magical Theory, one of the things I use is that Bard magic is different from Sorcerer or Warlock magic drastically. Bards tap into the Echoes Of Creation, the lingering effects of the sounds of the world, and magic itself, being formed. Some Bards claim it was "sung" into existence, others perceive these echoes as the tones that the creation created, like the high-pitched ping of a drop of water striking a pond in a cave. At any rate, it is these echoes that Bards learn to tap in to, attune to, and replicate to a degree. The Seeker of the Song Prestige class in 3.5e was a great example of this, as they learn to more precisely replicate the actual forces and energies of that creation, instead of using those echoes to create distinct spell effects. These echoes are still dependent on "the Weave" (as Forgotten Realms terms it, in any other setting this would just be the flow of magic throughout the multiverse) in order to bring the effect into existence.

Other arcane casters also tap into the Weave. The best explanation for HOW they do it is to compare it to kids in school taking a test. Let's use a math test for the analogy. Wizards are the kids that studied the material and know to get the right answer by following the correct steps. They can show their work. Sorcerers just "know" the answers. They go by some instinct, natural knack for the material, and they can get the exact same answers as wizards, but cannot show their work, even for incredibly complex equations. Warlocks...they cheat. They made a shady deal in a back alley, and someone gave them the answers to the test. They have the correct answers, but they have no real connection to how it works, through either intuition or hard work.

Divine Magic uses the Weave to work, but the source for the knowledge of it, to include the proper incantations/hand movements, comes from an external source. For Clerics, this is easy. They either get it from an actual divine being of intelligence (a deity), or from the collective unconscious of all those who share similar beliefs (for deity-less Clerics, and the Clerics of quasi-agnostic settings like Eberron). Druids sometimes worship Nature Deities, and for them, their magic works like Clerics' does. Most druids, however, revere Nature as a force in and of itself. The same principle of the Collective Unconscious grants them the knowledge of their magic, too. This comes from other Druids, Fey, Primal Spirits, and even knowledge stored in the very bones of the earth, latent and waiting to be tapped. Rangers tap into this in the exact same manner.

Paladins also tap into the Collective Unconscious of Belief, for the actual knowledge of their spells, but the various editions of D&D have changed what a Paladin even is so much that it requires an edition-by-edition breakdown. Pre-3e paladins: Get their powers, to include their spells, from a devotion to righteousness. As we know that Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are observable, quantifiable, dispassionate cosmic forces in D&D, it is through alignment with the forces of Law and Good that the paladin receives her powers. The immunities, auras, and lay-on-hands powers are no different than the spells in that regard. If they ever strayed from alignment with the forces of Law and Good, to include even one act of intentionally committed evil, they lost the communion with those forces that granted them the powers. 3.x Paladins actually worked the same way, but COULD also get their powers and spells from a deity, much like a cleric. It is a common misconception that 3e Paladins got their powers from gods, I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith. 4e Paladins got their powers from the rituals that invested them as Paladins, same way Clerics worked in 4e. 5e Paladins, now that's a clincher, as they SEEM to be more in common with their pre-4e ancestors, but with no alignment restriction. From all appearances, it would seem that their Devotion to their Oath is what grants them their power. And the knowledge of spells likewise comes from a connection to that ephemeral Collective Unconscious shared by those with the same beliefs.*

The Collective Unconscious Of Shared Belief is, by the way, why divine spellcasters of the same class all have the same spell lists. It's kind of based in Jungian principles and theories, but it perfectly explains how a Cleric can choose from ANY Cleric spell EVER when choosing his daily spell allotment.

*There was a previous discussion some time ago, and I had to do a search to find it, but PhoenixPhyre once had a great view on the subject:

Agreed.

As for my views--

Paladins are the sorcerer to a cleric's wizard. One's access to power is intrinsic, limited only by self. And it's only "divine" by virtue of the fact that that's how paladins view themselves. You could quite easily create an "Oath of the Weave" or "Spellknight" paladin who changes their list for a subset of the wizard list. They depend on Charisma for casting (in this case both force of will and conviction). To cast spells, they out-stubborn the universe, basically saying "no, it's this way" until the universe gives in and lets it be. Their limits flow from their self-concept--they are limited in those ways because they believe they are, and that belief and sacrifice (of autonomy) gives them power. They can lose power by losing conviction in their Oath and rejecting it. A paladin can be completely damned and still retain power. All they have to do is continue firm in the Oath they swore. Paladins are a law unto themselves, answering only to the Oath that they swore.

Clerics channel divine power and are in the service of a god because the god chose them. Whether or not they were devoted, now their power depends on their devotion. When they cast spells, their deity acts through them. They don't know spells, they channel spells. If they displease their god, they don't continue in power. This is true even if they still believe. A cleric of Bane who hobnobs with merciful people and opposes the will of Bane can lose power. Or not, depending on the whim of the deity at that moment. Clerics use Wisdom, because they have to be open to the will of the god moving through them. Clerics are agents of a being with a will and with independent thoughts.

Warlocks, like clerics, get power from extraplanar beings, but in a very different way. Warlocks get individual packets of power as contractual payment for services rendered (or to be rendered). Once granted, the grantor cannot take them back. While they may (or may not) have an ongoing relationship with their Patron, this is on a very different level than that of a cleric. Clerics can't conspire against or backstab their deity without losing power, while a warlock certainly can. Warlocks aren't agents of anyone.

Conceptually, they're very different power sources and the effects show in their class features. No, they're not overlapping more than any two classes will overlap.

[KorvinStarmast]

Divine classes (cleric, druid, paladin and ranger) don't really know how to cast spells, the spells are bestowed on them.
Nope. Knowing them and casting them are two separate elements of spell casting. Please see chapter 10 of the PHB. You seem to be confusing preparing and casting.

Divine classes don't have fishing poles. They are given a certain amount of fish.
Nope; they get to pick what kind of fish they have in the fridge on a given day.

Clerics (and Paladins who worship gods) get their fish from their gods, who may issue some demands in return. Maybe. Depends.


Druids (and other divine spellcasters who don't worship any gods but an idea) find their fish in the same place every morning. They have never met a guardian of that place (if there is a one) but if they stop following the rules of that particular place they stop finding their fish. Nope. Moon druids are also full casters, and they get full casting. This one doesn't work.


Sorcerers are the original arcane spellcasting class. They have innate magical properties and basically are magical creatures.

They are born with a special fishing pole which enables them to gather their own fish. They have no idea how it works or how to build one but it's almost impossible to take it away from them. The knowledge of how to use the fishing pole comes from their instincts. I think you nearly hit the mark with this one.


Wizards are normal mortals who observed Sorcerers and wanted to imitate them. They learn how to access the magic around them but they don't become magical creatures.

Wizards don't have their fishing poles but they are able to fish.
Their fishing pole is their brain.


Warlocks are not given their spells by their patrons but are given the ability to cast them. Once this is done patrons cannot just stop giving them spells because warlocks already know how to cast them. Warlocks BECOME magical creatures, pseudosorcerers, thanks to their patrons.

As an arcane class, warlocks are not given their fish but are instead obtaining them by themselves. They don't start with a fishing rod nor try to build one themselves. Instead they have a patron give one to them. Patrons also teach them how to use it, but warlocks (jus as sorcerers) have no idea why their fishing poles work that way. Once they have been given a fishing pole they are as connected to it as sorcerers and the patron cannot just take it away any easier than from a sorcerer (although it's theoretically still possible, just as with sorcers). Patrons can also give them some extra fish in the form of invocations. I see how you are overworking the fishing analogy, and like the sorcerer I think you are almost on the mark with this one.


I have left the Bards on the end because I think of them as real Jacks of All Trades. They have some innate power mixed with a bit of wizard-like study (the ratio differs from bard to bard). They are basically weaker sorcerers who have learned some real-life skills. It ties well with spellcasting abilities.
Close enough.


Divine classes just need to follow certain rules and they don't care much about magic itself.
Nope. Divine magic lets them spread the influence of their deity.

In a nutshell: the analogy doesn't work very well as a general guideline, you have not come close on the divine casters.

I do like how you applied the analogy to sorcerer and warlock. :smallsmile: