1DnD. Divine/Primal/Arcane system

[Hael]

I thought I would bring this subject up as I feel like it deserves its own thread post UA2. What are everyones thoughts so far?

I got to playtest a 1DnD game yesterday and we had a new player join (he only had played 5e once before). The experience of rolling a lvl 5 Bard was actually pretty miserable. I actually simply prefer having a spell table presented, rather than have to look up each spell one by one. If simplicity is what they were going for here, then I think this is a hard pass.

Another negative is the homogeniety between classes, and the loss of individual class spells (no more spells like shadow of moil that are warlock only).

On the positive side, the spell groupings allow some semblance of forward compatibility. Eg if a new Tashas comes out with a new spell, they can simply declare it ‘Divine’ and everyone will have access to it.

Overall, I think its a step backwards.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't like it at all, really. It will probably be toted for simplification but even with adding bespoke additions it crushes the identity that spell lists gave by-and-large.

And the simplicity it advertises isn't even a reality, look at the Bard:

- You use the Arcane list! ...but only these schools... and also your magical secrets

- You have to choose specific schools, okay not so bad, it's all intuitive... what do you mean Shatter is a Transmutation spell?

And it just laughs in the face of backwards compatibility.

[Psyren]

Bard got some really nice toys from this change (e.g. Hex, Haste, Levitate/Fly and Telekinesis) so I'm on board. The Lore Bard change also helps keep Bard from stealing half-caster spells long before the half-caster would get them.

[Hael]

Bard got some really nice toys from this change (e.g. Hex, Haste, Levitate/Fly and Telekinesis) so I'm on board. The Lore Bard change also helps keep Bard from stealing half-caster spells long before the half-caster would get them.

Sure, but you could just give them those spells in their own list as a matter of principle, you dont necessarily need the grouping in the first place.

Before UA2, I actually thought they were going to have a few universal spells in those lists, and then have a bunch of distinct class spell lists that were separate (so bard might get cure wound and say thornwhip in addition to a smaller selection of universal arcane spells). Instead they have a huge list subject to a rather arbitrary and complicated filtering criteria thats rather a PiTA to look up.

[Psyren]

Sure, but you could just give them those spells in their own list as a matter of principle, you dont necessarily need the grouping in the first place.

Before UA2, I actually thought they were going to have a few universal spells in those lists, and then have a bunch of distinct class spell lists that were separate (so bard might get cure wound and say thornwhip in addition to a smaller selection of universal arcane spells). Instead they have a huge list subject to a rather arbitrary and complicated filtering criteria thats rather a PiTA to look up.

Maybe I'm spoiled because I most often look spells up in D&D Beyond, but filtering for the DIET arcane spells seems like it'll be pretty easy to me. Presumably though the "book lists" will make school readily apparent since that's the primary filtering criteria.

[follacchioso]

The new system really seems designed for playing with a web interface like DND Beyond. You have a big list of spells, then simply filter them like a spreadsheet.

(EDIT) Did the new player try to use the predefined spells from the UA? Do you think they would have had an easier time using an interface like DND Beyond?

[Kane0]

I thought it was an interesting concept that could have been implemented well, but so far i'm not sold on it.

[animorte]

Yet again, I still can’t provide a worthy review of it. We haven’t seen how the other classes or subclasses implement these spell lists yet. I like the initial direction they decided on, being A/D/P.

I definitely know what you mean because the first time I made an Arcane Trickster, I found it very frustrating to look through the initial list and having to flip back and forth constantly trying to confirm spell schools. I have an idea: perhaps they provide two FULL spell lists, one that separates spells by level first and the other that separates spells by school first. Either way, listing the important details (spells and all) in a clear and concise manner will go a long way to improve the process.

[Mastikator]

Eh it's a bit easier to keep track of so that's a minor plus IMO

[Pooky the Imp]

It's a little strange seeing signature spells being handed out to all classes. e.g. everyone can now use Vicious Mockery, which had previously been Bard-only.

[Segev]

I suspect that spells that are currently iconic for being unique to particular classes will, like Hunter's Mark in Favored Enemy and Find Familiar in Pact of the Chain, wind up with (sub)class features that make them special when wielded by particular (sub)classes.

One hopeful consequence of this design choice will be that nobody makes the mistake of thinking sheltering a spell on a particular class list means it can be balanced "only" for the half-caster who gets it. It may require weakening certain spells or buffing them with class features or even with circumstantial modifiers in the spell itself that work in conjunction with specific class features to bring them to where they're meant to be.

[animorte]

I suspect that spells that are currently iconic for being unique to particular classes will, like Hunter's Mark in Favored Enemy and Find Familiar in Pact of the Chain, wind up with (sub)class features that make them special when wielded by particular (sub)classes.

One hopeful consequence of this design choice will be that nobody makes the mistake of thinking sheltering a spell on a particular class list means it can be balanced "only" for the half-caster who gets it. It may require weakening certain spells or buffing them with class features or even with circumstantial modifiers in the spell itself that work in conjunction with specific class features to bring them to where they're meant to be.

I was thinking about this as well. People have been concerned with, “now this class shares that thing” or “it’s not restricted to that class yet.” I think we’ve been given a few examples enough that even if the spell can be used by other classes, they probably have preferable options to the standard Hunter’s Mark, for example. Like, it’s still something that you could have access to without being a Ranger, but the Ranger will always do it better. That’s kind of how it should be.

[ZRN]

I thought I would bring this subject up as I feel like it deserves its own thread post UA2. What are everyones thoughts so far?

I got to playtest a 1DnD game yesterday and we had a new player join (he only had played 5e once before). The experience of rolling a lvl 5 Bard was actually pretty miserable. I actually simply prefer having a spell table presented, rather than have to look up each spell one by one. If simplicity is what they were going for here, then I think this is a hard pass.

Another negative is the homogeniety between classes, and the loss of individual class spells (no more spells like shadow of moil that are warlock only).

On the positive side, the spell groupings allow some semblance of forward compatibility. Eg if a new Tashas comes out with a new spell, they can simply declare it ‘Divine’ and everyone will have access to it.

Overall, I think its a step backwards.

I agree it's a step backwards, but unfortunately the step forwards (rebalancing/further separating and restricting the individual class spell lists, so e.g. wizards and sorcerers aren't casting 95% the same spells) would have meant a lot more work and less backward compatibility (both to 5e and to 3e, which was clearly the motivation when they wrote the 5e lists). So I guess they're testing whether this opposite directions gives them something "cleaner" with minimal loss of individual class identity.

I don't really like the bard changes for the reason you mention (and I'll add that IMO moving bards to prepared spells adds to the difficulty here), but I think the real proof in the pudding will be the "mage" packet, and particularly the warlock, which had the closest thing to a unique spell list within the broader "arcane" set of spells.

[RSP]

Yeah, I wonder if they won’t do something similar to Sorc, t base it on bloodline. Dragon gets Evocation, Abjuration and Divination; Wild rolls every day; DS gets Divination, Transmutation and the Divine list; etc.

If so, it does seem like they just made a more complicated listing system, that very much lends itself to some sort of sorting interface.

That said, I’ve always thought Sorc should have a source-specific listing of spells, but have more options to pull from to make that specific list. Such as why does a Cold-based Sorc (like White Dragon bloodline) have Wall of Fire, Firebolt, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc.

I could see the Devs going with a “you can choose from the Arcane list, but tailor the spells to your source”-type suggestion. And I can live with that (optimizers will still choose the “best” spells and RPers will have more options to cultivate a list from; which is fine with me.

Guess we’ll find out over the next month or so, but the Bard spells do feel a bit more cumbersome to get selections.

[lall]

It's a little strange seeing signature spells being handed out to all classes. e.g. everyone can now use Vicious Mockery, which had previously been Bard-only.
Will gladly share this signature spell in exchange for Mind Sliver. D6 damage now. Hold my bard back!

[Stangler]

I thought I would bring this subject up as I feel like it deserves its own thread post UA2. What are everyones thoughts so far?

I got to playtest a 1DnD game yesterday and we had a new player join (he only had played 5e once before). The experience of rolling a lvl 5 Bard was actually pretty miserable. I actually simply prefer having a spell table presented, rather than have to look up each spell one by one. If simplicity is what they were going for here, then I think this is a hard pass.

Another negative is the homogeniety between classes, and the loss of individual class spells (no more spells like shadow of moil that are warlock only).

On the positive side, the spell groupings allow some semblance of forward compatibility. Eg if a new Tashas comes out with a new spell, they can simply declare it ‘Divine’ and everyone will have access to it.

Overall, I think its a step backwards.

I think that this kind of take is exactly why there is a playtest. Making spell selection easier of a process seems like an obvious thing. Fine tuning the various spell lists to feel unique also seems clearly important.

I think that being a prepared spell caster is a good feature. Were they able to test that or was it such a hassle to select spells that they didn't bother?

[Mastikator]

The default spell list existed for those that would find selecting spells to be daunting. If you find spell selection overwhelming, yet insist on playing a primary spell caster and replacing their spells every long rest, then that feel of too much whelm is kinda your fault.

[Jervis]

Bard got some really nice toys from this change (e.g. Hex, Haste, Levitate/Fly and Telekinesis) so I'm on board. The Lore Bard change also helps keep Bard from stealing half-caster spells long before the half-caster would get them.

I mean those spells seemingly won’t exist anymore anyway. Unless you want to argue that clerics won’t have access to conjuration spells in dndone. (I refuse to call it ODnD, 1dnd, or anything sensible in protest of this stupid name) Of course I personally think that’s a good thing since cleric on a war horse and Druid with hunters mark is *chefs kiss*

That said I actually do overall like the system. Bespoke spell lists seem nice but they have their own problems like the classic “WHY CANT MY SORCERER CAST TRUE POLYMORPH!?” This stops Wizards from playing favorites with spell lists and forces them to actually make classes instead of having class features disguised as spells. It also means that any class shown later can have spells from different books and, most notably for home brewers assuming the OGL exists in dndone, homebrew classes can make spell lists easily.

Yeah not having a dedicated table adds some issues and this is a feature scalped from PF2 which has its own problems attached, but it really isn’t hard to just find spells of a given school. Maybe in addition to each class having it’s schools listed next to it they could add takes like B, S, W etc to the arcane list to show which classes with restricted schools can access what.

[KorvinStarmast]

In order to support this thread, I will make one table each for the breakdown of each school into APB.

Here is Abjuration so far. (PHB only, I think).


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Prima


0
Blade Ward
resistance
resistance


1
Armor of Agathys
Mage Armor
Shield
Protection from Evil and Good

Cure Wounds
Healing Word
Protection from Evil and Good
Sanctuary
Shield of Faith

Cure Wounds
Healing Word



2
Arcane Lock
Aid
Lesser Restoration
Prayer of Healing
Protection from Poison
Warding Bond

Lesser Restoration
Pass Without a Trace
Protection from Poison



3
Counterspell
Dispel Magic
Glyph of Warding
Magic circle
Nondetection
Protection From Energy
Remove Curse

Aura of Vitality
Beacon of Hope
Dispel Magic
Glyph of Warding
Magic Circle
Mass Healing Word
Remove Curse

Dispel Magic
Mass Healing Word
Nondetection
Protection From Energy



4
Banishment
Mord’s Private Sanctum

Aura of Life
Aura of Purity
Banishment
Death Ward
Freedom of
Movement
Guardian of Faith

Freedom of Movement


5
Planar Binding
Banishing Smite
Circle of Power
Dispel Evil and Good
Greater Restoration
Hallow
Mass Cure Wounds
Planar Binding

Antilife Shell
Greater Restoration
Mass Cure Wounds



6
Contingency
Globe of Invulnerability
Guards and Wards

Forbiddance
Heal

Heal


7
Symbol
Symbol
--


8
Antimagic Field
Mind Blank
Antimagic Field
Holy Aura

--


9
Imprisonment
Prismatic Wall

Mass Heal
Power Word Heal

Power Word Heal.



Comments: small amounts of overlap, and no abjuration at levels 7 and 8 for Primal? Yet.
Here is Conjuration:


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Primal


0
Acid Splash
Mage Hand
Poison Spray

--
Poison Spray


1
Arms of Hadar
Find Familiar
Fog Cloud
Grease
Tensers Floating Disk
Unseen Servant


-

Ensnaring Strike
Entangle
Fog Cloud
Hail of Thorns




2
Cloud of Daggers
Misty Step
Web

Find Steed

--



3
Hunger of Hadar
Sleet Storm
Stinking Cloud

Create Food and Water
Spirit Guardians

Call Lightning
Conjure Animals
Conjure Barrage
Sleet Storm



4
Conjure Minor Elementals
Dimension Door
Evard’s Black Tentacles
Leomund’s Secret Chest
Mord’s Faithful Hound

--

Conjure Minor Elementals
Conjure Woodland Beings
Grasping Vine



5
Cloudkill
Conjure Elemental
Teleportation Circle

--

Conjure Elemental
Conjure Volley
Insect Plague
Tree Stride



6
Arcane Gate
Instant Summons

Heroes’ Feast
Planar Ally
Word of Recall

Conjure Fey
Transport via Plants
Wall of Thorns



7
Mord’s Magnificent Mansion
Plane Shift
Teleport

Conjure Celestial
Plane Shift

--


8
Demiplane
Incendiary Cloud
Maze

--

Tsunami


9
Gate
Wish

Gate
Storm of Vengeance


Divine Spells Don't Conjure Much, but there is a Tasha's Divine summons that may change that.
Here are Divination Spells


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Primal


0
True Strike

Guidance
Guidance


1
Comprehend Languages
Detect Magic
Identify

Detect Evil and Good
Detect Magic
Detect Poison and Disease

Detect magic
Detect poison and Disease
Hunters Mark
Speak with Animals



2
Detect Thoughts
Locate Object
See Invisibility

Augury
Find Traps
Locate Object

Augury
Beast Sense
Find Traps
Locate Animals or Plants
Locate Object



3
Clairvyoande
Sending
Tongues

Clairvoyance
Tongues

--



4
Arcane Eye
Locate Creature

Divination
Locate Creature

Locate Creature



5
Contact Other Plane
Legend Lore
Rary’s Telepathic Bond
Scrying

Commune
Legend Lore
Scrying

Commune with Nature
Scrying



6
True Seeing

Find the Path
True Seeing

Find the Path



7
--

--

--


8
Telepathy

--

--


9
Foresight

Foresight
--


Comments: Primal has no Divination spells 7-9, there are no 7th level Divination spells.


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Primal


0
Friends
Vicious Mockery

-
-


1
Charm Person
Dissonant Whispers
Hex
Sleep
Tasha’s Hideous Laughter

Bane
Bless
Command
Compelled Duel
Heroism

Animal Friendship



2
Calm Emotions
Crown of Madness
Enthrall
Hold Person
Suggestion

Calm Emotions
Hold Person
Zone of Truth

Animal Messenger



3
-

-

-



4
Compulsion
Confusion

--

Dominate Beast



5
Dominate Person
Geas
Hold Monster
Modify Memory

Geas

--



6
Mass Suggestion
Otto’s Irresistible Dance

--

--



7
--

--

--


8
Antipathy/Sympathy
Dominate Monster
Feeblemind
Glibness
Power Word Stun

Antipathy/Sympathy

--


9
Power Word Kill

--
--


No Enchantment levels 5-9 for Primal; no Enchantment level 7 for anyone, why is Dominate Monster not a Druid/Primal spell?


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Primal


0
Fire Bolt
Light
Ray of Frost
Shocking Grasp

Light
Sacred Flame
Produce Flame


1
Burning Hands
Chromatic Orb
Hellish Rebuke
Magic Missile
Witch Bolt

Divine Favor
Guiding Bolt
Searing Smite
Thunderous Smite
Wrathful Smite

Faerie Fire



2
Continual Flame
Darkness
Flaming Sphere
Gust of Wind
Melf’s Acid Arrow
Scorching Ray

Branding Smite
Spiritual Weapon


Animal Messenger



3
Fireball
Leomund’s Tiny Hut (???)
Lightning Bolt

Blinding Smite
Crusader’s Mantle
Daylight

Daylight
Wind Wall



4
Fire Shield
Ice Storm
Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere
Wall of Fire

--

Ice Storm
Wall of Fire



5
Bigby’s Hand
Cone of Cold
Wall of Force
Wall of Stone

Destructive Wave
Flame Strike

Wall of Stone



6
Chain Lightning
Otiluke’s Freezing Sphere
Sunbeam
Wall of Ice

Blade Barrier
Sunbeam

Sunbeam



7
Delayed Blast Fireball
Forcecage
Mord’s Sword
Prismatic Spray

Divine Word

Fire Storm


8
Sunburst

Sunburst

Sunburst


9
Meteor Swarm

--
--


At level 8, we have Sunburst, Sunburst, and more Sunburst! And Lembas bread ... :smallcool:


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Primal


0
Dancing Lights
Minor Illusion

--
--


1
Color Spray
Disguise Self
Illusory Scrips
Silent Image
--
--


2
Blur
Invisibility
Magic Aura
Magic Mouth
Mirror Image
Phantasmal Force
Silence
Silence


3
Fear
Hypnotic Pattern
Major Image
Phantom Steed
--
--


4
Greater Invisibility
Hallucinatory Terrain
Phantasmal Killer
--
{Why No Hallucinatory Terrain?}


5
Creation
Dream
Mislead
Seeming
--
--


6
Programmed Illusion
--
--


7
Mirage Arcane
Project Image
Simulacrum
--
--


8
--
--
--


9
Weird
--
--


Comments:
How are the Fey/Druid/Primal not related as regards illusion? Primal is very short of illusion spells.
No Divine and no Primal spells in illusion school from 5 through 9.
No 8th level illusions at all. Lots of holes here.
The only Divine illusion spell is Silence.


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Primal


0
Chill Touch
Spare the Dying
Spare the Dying


1
False Life
Ray of Sickness
Inflict Wounds
--


2
Ray of Enfeeblement
Gentle Repose
Gentle Repose


3
Animate Dead
Bestow Curse
Vampiric Touch
Feign Death
Revivify
Speak with Dead
Feign Death
Revivify


4
Blight
--
{Why No Blight?}


5
--
Contagion
Raise Dead
Reincarnate


6
Circle of Death
Create Undead
Eyebite
Majic Jar
Harm
--


7
Finger of Death
Resurrection
--


8
Clone
--
--


9
Astral Projection {??}
Astral Projection
True Resurrection
True Resurrection


Why is Astral Projection spell Necromancy? Travel like that seems to fit Conjuration...just a thought.


Lvl
Arcane
Divine
Primal


0
Mending
Message
Prestidigitation
Thaumaturgy
Druidcraft
Mending
Message
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip


1
Expeditious Retreat
Feather Fall
Jump
Longstrider
Thunderwave
Purify Food and Drink
Create or Destroy Water
Goodberry
Jump
Longstrider
Purify Food and Drink
Thunderwave


2
Alter Self
Blindness/Deafness
Darkvision
Enlarge Reduce
Knock
Levitate
Magic Weapon
Rope Trick
Shatter
Spider Climb
Blindness / Deafness
Magic Weapon
Barkskin
Cordon of Arrows
Darkvision
Enhance Ability
Enlarge Reduce
Heat Metal
Spike Growth


3
Blink
Fly
Gaseous Form
Haste
Slow
Water Breathing
--
Elemental Weapon
Lightning Arrow
Meld into Stone
Plant Growth
Speak With Plants
Water Breathing
Water Walk


4
Control Water
Fabricate
Polymorph
Stone Shape
Stoneskin
--
Control Water
Giant Insect
Polymorph
Stone Shape
Stoneskin


5
Animate Objects
Passwall
Telekinesis
--
Awaken
Swift Quiver


6
Disintegrate
Flesh to Stone
Move Earth
--
Move Earth
Wind Walk


7
Etherealness
Reverse Gravity
Sequester
Etherealness
Regenerate
Regenerate
Reverse Gravity


8
Control Weather
--
Animal Shapes
Control Weather
Earthquake


9
Shapechange
Time Stop
True Polymorph
--
Shapechange


So many questions. So few Transmutation spells in Divine.

[Segev]

dndone. (I refuse to call it ODnD, 1dnd, or anything sensible in protest of this stupid name)

It is a stupid name. But my personal take is to call it 5.1 D&D. I gets the "one" in there, poitns out it's a descendent of 5e (now 5.0, I guess), and borrows from the old 3.5 edition numbering scheme.

I do appreciate your pun, though; it shows your disgust with it by implying that you're "done" with D&D. At least the idea of moving to the new half-edition. (Unless you don't mean it that way, but still, I draw that from it.)

[Psyren]

I mean those spells seemingly won’t exist anymore anyway. Unless you want to argue that clerics won’t have access to conjuration spells in dndone.

I don't get these sentences at all :smallconfused: What do Clerics have to do with Hex and Fly?


I suspect that spells that are currently iconic for being unique to particular classes will, like Hunter's Mark in Favored Enemy and Find Familiar in Pact of the Chain, wind up with (sub)class features that make them special when wielded by particular (sub)classes.

One hopeful consequence of this design choice will be that nobody makes the mistake of thinking sheltering a spell on a particular class list means it can be balanced "only" for the half-caster who gets it. It may require weakening certain spells or buffing them with class features or even with circumstantial modifiers in the spell itself that work in conjunction with specific class features to bring them to where they're meant to be.

Agreed, they will now actually design spells with the expectation that casters besides the specific one it's most intended for will use it.

And the spell list change also opens up more builds. I can think of some Moon or Spore druids that can get decent mileage out of Hunter's Mark. It might end up being pretty nice on a Ranger/Monk too.

[Dienekes]

In general, I'm not really a fan of them.

On the hand of codifying an actual difference between different origins of spells, that's a good change to make narrative fit mechanics. But, i really don't think it really feels that way. Maybe if Arcane, Divine, and Primal spells had some different mechanic to make them play different I'd like them more. But that doesn't work with the current spell slot system. Especially since they appear to be making classes more similar to each other by making everyone prepared casters.

As far as balance goes, it may be fine. But, I think it just makes things warp a bit to get it to fit. Bard's not getting healing, so instead has to manually get healing spells in their class is just odd. And the way they now interact with Arcane Secrets by gaining whole new schools of magic is one of the more insanely versatile abilities in the game, for a full caster also known for being one of the most versatile already.

The whole thing feels wonky when compared to just having a spell list.

But really the issue I have is that if classes are going to have the grouped spell lists and then have some of it cordoned off from them anyway, I feel it would be easier to then build your character and play if you have the list available somewhere, rather than flicking through the book to see which spells you actually get with the school restrictions. This is mostly just an annoyance issue. But I'd still like to just get the spell lists. And if we get the spell lists, well, then we're back to where we were before just with an additional step involved.

[Jervis]

I don't get these sentences at all :smallconfused: What do Clerics have to do with Hex and Fly?
.

I was referring to the half caster spell part, what with find steed being a generic divine spell now

[GooeyChewie]

I'm less happy with the system than I was with just the first UA. I thought classes would still have their own spell lists, and that the Divine/Primal/Arcane lists would be used for other features. I don't like the idea of an entire class needing to look up the list and then filter it through schools just to figure out their base list.

How I think the lists should be used:

•Individual features which grant the use of a limited number of spells, like Magic Initiate
•1/3 level casting, which would previously have looked at another class list anyway
•Guiding the creation of NPCs without specific classes

How I think the lists should not be used:

•A first-level filter on class spells which requires an additional filter

[Psyren]

I was referring to the half caster spell part, what with find steed being a generic divine spell now

Find Steed would be an easy one to not be a spell anymore if they want to go that route. 5e was the edition that first made it a spell instead of a paladin feature after all.

[zlefin]

It's almost exactly what pathfinder2 did; so what I'd really like to know, as a basis for comparison, is how well it's worked out for pathfinder 2. Few people on the forum talk about pathfinder 2, so I don't have much data to go off of. But any flaws/benefits in the system should be highly apparent by now from people's experience.

[Segev]

Find Steed would be an easy one to not be a spell anymore if they want to go that route. 5e was the edition that first made it a spell instead of a paladin feature after all.
I am fine with it remaining a spell. Let the cleric have a divine mount. Let the bard who takes divine magical secrets.

Let the paladin do more with it, the way a Pact of the Chain Warlock does more with find famiLiar.

It's almost exactly what pathfinder2 did; so what I'd really like to know, as a basis for comparison, is how well it's worked out for pathfinder 2. Few people on the forum talk about pathfinder 2, so I don't have much data to go off of. But any flaws/benefits in the system should be highly apparent by now from people's experience.

3.PF also made steeds, and familiars, and animal companions into class features. Animal friendship was 3.0's way of giving druids and rangers animal buddies. 3.5 made it a feature. It is interesting that 5e has both the spell and gives rangers archetypes that have built-in pets that try and often fail to amount to the 3.5 animal companion.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll keep adding to the breakdowns as time permits. Currently not enough time.

Also, this isn't a finished product, it's 'the direction we are going' so make sure to provide feedback when that opens up.


3.PF also made steeds, and familiars, and animal companions into class features. OD&D established the find steed as a Paladin class feature (AD&D 1e refined it a bit). Would be a good idea to return to that approach. It being a spell does not IMO add value.

[animorte]

I am fine with it remaining a spell. Let the cleric have a divine mount. Let the bard who takes divine magical secrets.

Let the paladin do more with it, the way a Pact of the Chain Warlock does more with find famiLiar.


I’m also fine with it. Open up the resources, but provide a feature specific to those it was intended for initially.

And that last part got a good chuckle out of me, so thanks.

[Psyren]

I am fine with it remaining a spell. Let the cleric have a divine mount. Let the bard who takes divine magical secrets.

Let the paladin do more with it, the way a Pact of the Chain Warlock does more with find famiLiar.

Sure, that's an okay compromise too.



3.PF also made steeds, and familiars, and animal companions into class features. Animal friendship was 3.0's way of giving druids and rangers animal buddies. 3.5 made it a feature. It is interesting that 5e has both the spell and gives rangers archetypes that have built-in pets that try and often fail to amount to the 3.5 animal companion.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd much rather have the 5e Primal Companion than the 3.5 or PF Animal Companion. The latter has reduced progression, needs to be buffed for its attacks to count as magic, and most importantly, has less intelligence and needs to be Handled via Tricks where the 5e one can simply be directed with its 8 Int and understanding of my languages.

[Yakk]

It allows adding new classes without doing O(spelllist length) work.

"Artificers use the Arcane spell list, only the Transmutation, Conjuration, Divination and Evocation spells".

Instead of making a bespoke list.

This restricts what you can allow/forbid; but it means that designers are forced to be lazy. They can't allow most evocation while banning fireball, for example.

This also means that when they add a new spell, they don't need to do O(number of spellcaster classes) work to work out which lists it goes in.

You just put it in the appropriate school. And if you aligned schools to classes right, it should fit the class.

Then we add a set of bespoke spells, like the bard healing spells, on top.

Finally, the hybrid "class defining" spells can be completely off-list. So bards, or other classes who can poach, don't get them.

[Person_Man]

I am not a fan. A lot of this probably springs from the fact that I buy and use physical books, and will not pay for a D&D Beyond subscription.

There are way too many spells on each list, which makes it unknowably large and difficult to manage unless you’re willing to dedicate many hours to reading and comparing them and/or the forums. Power creep for the full casters is inevitable as splat books are published. The “nesting” of spells at different class levels, and within subclasses, makes it impossible for the class names to be included with the spell descriptions, which means you have to flip back and forth between the class/subclass and spells (often in different books) to figure out what you can cast. And the very large overlap between classes makes each class less distinct.

[Jervis]

Find Steed would be an easy one to not be a spell anymore if they want to go that route. 5e was the edition that first made it a spell instead of a paladin feature after all.

While I do agree I was just pointing out that it as well as other notable spells were left on the generic lists. I’m actually not against the idea of leaving it as is so clerics can get a mount. Though I would like some support for paladins to get a mount at the same time as a cleric can through class features or maybe a feat or something.

NB4 they make paladins full casters or something that makes the internet explode for a little while

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am not a fan. A lot of this probably springs from the fact that I buy and use physical books, and will not pay for a D&D Beyond subscription.

There are way too many spells on each list, which makes it unknowably large and difficult to manage unless you’re willing to dedicate many hours to reading and comparing them and/or the forums. Power creep for the full casters is inevitable as splat books are published. The “nesting” of spells at different class levels, and within subclasses, makes it impossible for the class names to be included with the spell descriptions, which means you have to flip back and forth between the class/subclass and spells (often in different books) to figure out what you can cast. And the very large overlap between classes makes each class less distinct.

Very much agree with this.

Also, this idea had lots of potential but, as usual, they turned the implementation into something grotesque and half-baked. Somehow it's worse than the class spell lists--it removes any kind of thematics and guarantees that wizards get all the best spells without even trying. It reinforces the (utterly archaic and useless) spell school concept as something fundamental and exposes how dumb the split into spell schools is. It exacerbates imbalance between casters because the schools aren't anywhere near balanced in any sort of meaningful way and cannot without removing their (weak as it is) thematic content. And, as you say, it's an utter pain to work with. And even D&D Beyond isn't much better--their interface is...poor at best. Like...seriously. A million clicks to do anything, with long full page reloads every time you want to change a filter.

[Dork_Forge]

Very much agree with this.

Also, this idea had lots of potential but, as usual, they turned the implementation into something grotesque and half-baked. Somehow it's worse than the class spell lists--it removes any kind of thematics and guarantees that wizards get all the best spells without even trying. It reinforces the (utterly archaic and useless) spell school concept as something fundamental and exposes how dumb the split into spell schools is. It exacerbates imbalance between casters because the schools aren't anywhere near balanced in any sort of meaningful way and cannot without removing their (weak as it is) thematic content. And, as you say, it's an utter pain to work with. And even D&D Beyond isn't much better--their interface is...poor at best. Like...seriously. A million clicks to do anything, with long full page reloads every time you want to change a filter.

I see your complaints and raise you that their search feature is an abomination that has you reading from a list most of the time even though you typed exactly what you wanted.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see your complaints and raise you that their search feature is an abomination that has you reading from a list most of the time even though you typed exactly what you wanted.

Agreed. In fact, D&D Beyond is a usability nightmare from start to finish.

[animorte]

Agreed. In fact, D&D Beyond is a usability nightmare from start to finish.

Well, now they’re all official and stuff, so maybe they get better funding and improve the experience.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, now they’re all official and stuff, so maybe they get better funding and improve the experience.

Hah. Hah. Hah. Hah.

I wish. WotC's track record on these digital matters is...really really poor.

[Yakk]

I mean, wizard where already getting all of the best spells prior to this change.

What this change means is they can go and add a Necromancer class, say "has access to necromancy arcane and divine spells", and then go from there with class features.

And if they add a new necromancy spell in another splat book, the Necromancer class gets it automatically, and doesn't have to be added explicitly.

It makes class creep easier. That might not be great, but it is a design feature.

Effectively, in 5e, the Wizard was the Arcane, the Druid the Primal and the Cleric the Divine list. How many spells where added NOT to those 3 lists?

5e did leave it open for a spell to be added to the Paladin list; but more Paladin spells where poached by Clerics than the other way around.

[Jervis]

Hah. Hah. Hah. Hah.

I wish. WotC's track record on these digital matters is...really really poor.
Didn’t they have some online resources for 4E that kinda just stopped or am I misremembering?

[Dork_Forge]

Well, now they’re all official and stuff, so maybe they get better funding and improve the experience.

They would need to see it as an issue to address first, which is exceedingly unlikely.


Didn’t they have some online resources for 4E that kinda just stopped or am I misremembering?

That project stopped because of a tragic real-life circumstance, rather than WotC, though you could argue it shouldn't have been so heavily tied to a single person.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. I mean, wizard where already getting all of the best spells prior to this change.

2. What this change means is they can go and add a Necromancer class, say "has access to necromancy arcane and divine spells", and then go from there with class features.

3.And if they add a new necromancy spell in another splat book, the Necromancer class gets it automatically, and doesn't have to be added explicitly.

It makes class creep easier. That might not be great, but it is a design feature.

4.Effectively, in 5e, the Wizard was the Arcane, the Druid the Primal and the Cleric the Divine list. How many spells where added NOT to those 3 lists?

5e did leave it open for a spell to be added to the Paladin list; but more Paladin spells where poached by Clerics than the other way around.

1. And that's an actively bad thing that they're actively and intentionally making worse.
2. So yeah, enables lazy design without thinking about thematics or mechanical consistency. Par for the course for WotC, but not exactly good.
3. This is actively a bad thing. Definitely BUG, not feature. It means that casters get even more power creep (when they were already power-creepy enough). It was already easier to add stuff to spell lists than anything else. Things that make that even easier just make it more common. Which is actively detrimental.
4. Warlocks had a decent selection of unique spells that fit them. Which now wizards and bards both poach. And rangers had a decent share of unique ones (pity they were mostly bad). And clerics poaching paladin spells is a bug, not a feature.

When spellcasting is the vast majority of a class's power budget (as it is with all full casters but especially wizards), giving them more spells is a quadratic (at least) power gain. Maybe if spellcasting was just a small additional/parallel system and most of the power came from class features, this might work. As it is? No. It's all bug, no feature.

[Kane0]

Finally, the hybrid "class defining" spells can be completely off-list. So bards, or other classes who can poach, don't get them.
Or even better, not spells at all. Eldritch Blast is the posterchild example but Hunters Mark, Healing Word, Vicious Mockery, etc dont necessarily have to be spells in the first place

[Psyren]

1. And that's an actively bad thing that they're actively and intentionally making worse.
2. So yeah, enables lazy design without thinking about thematics or mechanical consistency. Par for the course for WotC, but not exactly good.
3. This is actively a bad thing. Definitely BUG, not feature. It means that casters get even more power creep (when they were already power-creepy enough). It was already easier to add stuff to spell lists than anything else. Things that make that even easier just make it more common. Which is actively detrimental.

I'd, uh, suggest you get used to disappointment if you think "new books shouldn't contain spells" has any hope of traction.



4. Warlocks had a decent selection of unique spells that fit them. Which now wizards and bards both poach. And rangers had a decent share of unique ones (pity they were mostly bad). And clerics poaching paladin spells is a bug, not a feature.

Honestly, nothing about Warlock spells needed to be warlock exclusive, it's all fluff. "Hex" could have been labelled "Jinx," "Arms of Hadar" could have been named "Void Burst" etc.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, nothing about Warlock spells needed to be warlock exclusive, it's all fluff. "Hex" could have been labelled "Jinx," "Arms of Hadar" could have been named "Void Burst" etc.

This is a bit of an interesting take for me, since as I see it fluff is what makes the Warlock a Warlock and not "Generic Arcane Mage #4." If anything I'd want them to make more distinctions based on fluff and divvy up the playstyles more.

[Psyren]

This is a bit of an interesting take for me, since as I see it fluff is what makes the Warlock a Warlock and not "Generic Arcane Mage #4." If anything I'd want them to make more distinctions based on fluff and divvy up the playstyles more.

What makes a warlock a warlock for me are pact slots, invocations, and eldritch blast.

Also, static fluff doesn't make much internal sense to me either. Why is a fey warlock calling upon some Lovecraftian starspawn? Why would a genielock do so? Or a heavenly one?

[Rafaelfras]

I dont like that much.

Primal is something that says nothing to me in terms of mysticism, or as magic source, perhaps is just old habits, but primal is an attempt to differentiate clerics and druids, but for me druid magic as a expression of the divine is very fitting (even if you want it to come from nature itself). For me druids and clerics always will be priests from different religions and traditions but priests nonetheless. The fact that both will be in the priest subgroup only reinforces this.

In short, I dont like primal.

For the spell lists been available to all, I dont like that much either, warlock/wizard example comes to mind because as a pursuer of forbidden knowledge, it makes sense that the warlock has access to some spells that look like.... forbidden. Bard one was very distinct as well. This leads to homogenization and dont seem to improve things that much ( if at all).

Now a way to avoid homogenization id to give class and subclass abilities that are even more potent and outstanding, but seeing the bard that seems to not be the case

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. I'd, uh, suggest you get used to disappointment if you think "new books shouldn't contain spells" has any hope of traction.

2. Honestly, nothing about Warlock spells needed to be warlock exclusive, it's all fluff. "Hex" could have been labelled "Jinx," "Arms of Hadar" could have been named "Void Burst" etc.


This is a bit of an interesting take for me, since as I see it fluff is what makes the Warlock a Warlock and not "Generic Arcane Mage #4." If anything I'd want them to make more distinctions based on fluff and divvy up the playstyles more.

1. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that making it easier to print lots of spells and splat them about without thinking is lazy and bad design. Personally, they could do without printing very many new spells before they trim down what they have. Because bloat is bloat, and the spell lists (all of them) are super bloated with redundant spells everywhere even on the same list and a total lack of thematic content. But that's not what I was responding to there at all. I specifically detailed why I think the new design is horribly implemented and tends to make the game more generic and less balanced (unless they just go with "everyone's a full caster", which is a bad idea IMO as well).

2. I agree with Dienekes. Sure, Psyren, I see that you are all in favor of a fluff/crunch divide. But I personally think that that's a horrible horrible idea that produces bland blandness and encourages choosing the most powerful options without regard to settings, archetypes, or anything else.



Primal is something that says nothing to me in terms of mysticism, or as magic source, perhaps is just old habits, but primal is an attempt to differentiate clerics and druids, but for me druid magic as a expression of the divine is very fitting (even if you want it to come from nature itself). For me druids and clerics always will be priests from different religions and traditions but priests nonetheless. The fact that both will be in the priest subgroup only reinforces this.

In short, I dont like primal.


And I'm on the other side of this divide entirely. I like the concept of primal. I see "I draw power from the spirits of nature and by invoking the elements themselves" as fundamentally different than "I am a servant of this particular god and do his or her will by faith." It's the difference between reaching toward another plane and being chosen as a champion by some discrete individual with individual agendas and drawing on the non-entity, non-individual reality around you. Clerics do the will of their patron; druids act on behalf of those things that cannot (or do not) speak for themselves. Clerics reach up (or down), druids reach around themselves. And separating them allows you to consider non-spell things like (say) barbarians drawing on the power of the world around them via emotions. And makes the concept of rangers and their (supernatural) pets even clearer--the ranger is making friends with and embedding these spirit entities in their pet, forming the bond between them and linking them in supernatural ways.

For me, a cleric has a drawing account at the bank of celestial power in the name of their deity. They have to get their transactions approved by the authorizing entity and act as agents (in the agent-theoretical sense) of the other entity. They are subordinate to their deity in every way; for a cleric, perfection is reached by wholly subsuming their will to that of the deity.

Druids, on the other hand, negotiate with their sources of power. They bond with, persuade, use, and are used by the (pantheistic) spirits of all things. A druid may call upon the primal spirit of the bear, promising an experience like none other and a piece of their own power in exchange for the spirit forming a body and acting as pilot (because learning to run on 4 legs isn't easy). We call this wildshape. To cast spells, they make little deals with the curious spirits of everything--promising that bundle of weeds some energy if it'll rise up and entangle the feet of their enemies. Etc. But they don't have a single "thing they can piss off" or even a single agenda--they might as easily work against one part of nature on behalf of another, because they are the medium through which nature balances itself.

To an eye that could see auras, a powerful cleric would be very single of purpose and their aura would be in the shape (metaphysically) of their patron. They'd be a window, through which the patron can reach and act. A druid, instead, would be surrounded by a cloud of tiny spirits, all buzzing around and trying to get the druid's attention.

Those lend themselves to very different spell selections--a cleric's spells come from above (or below) and command the world to obey; a druid's come from within the world and "go with the flow", tweaking things as needed but not disrupting the flow.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why is a fey warlock calling upon some Lovecraftian starspawn? Why would a genielock do so? Or a heavenly one? Flexibility in play, that's why. If you make a straight jacket, nobody will play it. Also, calling it fluff is lazy thinking.

[Dienekes]

What makes a warlock a warlock for me are pact slots, invocations, and eldritch blast.

Also, static fluff doesn't make much internal sense to me either. Why is a fey warlock calling upon some Lovecraftian starspawn? Why would a genielock do so? Or a heavenly one?

Oh, I would be all for making the spells a character can cast even more directly based off their fluff if I could, so they couldn't do that. But, sadly, we have a game that ignores flavor for gameplay too much already.

[Rafaelfras]

And I'm on the other side of this divide entirely. I like the concept of primal. I see "I draw power from the spirits of nature and by invoking the elements themselves" as fundamentally different than "I am a servant of this particular god and do his or her will by faith." It's the difference between reaching toward another plane and being chosen as a champion by some discrete individual with individual agendas and drawing on the non-entity, non-individual reality around you. Clerics do the will of their patron; druids act on behalf of those things that cannot (or do not) speak for themselves. Clerics reach up (or down), druids reach around themselves. And separating them allows you to consider non-spell things like (say) barbarians drawing on the power of the world around them via emotions. And makes the concept of rangers and their (supernatural) pets even clearer--the ranger is making friends with and embedding these spirit entities in their pet, forming the bond between them and linking them in supernatural ways.

For me, a cleric has a drawing account at the bank of celestial power in the name of their deity. They have to get their transactions approved by the authorizing entity and act as agents (in the agent-theoretical sense) of the other entity. They are subordinate to their deity in every way; for a cleric, perfection is reached by wholly subsuming their will to that of the deity.

Druids, on the other hand, negotiate with their sources of power. They bond with, persuade, use, and are used by the (pantheistic) spirits of all things. A druid may call upon the primal spirit of the bear, promising an experience like none other and a piece of their own power in exchange for the spirit forming a body and acting as pilot (because learning to run on 4 legs isn't easy). We call this wildshape. To cast spells, they make little deals with the curious spirits of everything--promising that bundle of weeds some energy if it'll rise up and entangle the feet of their enemies. Etc. But they don't have a single "thing they can piss off" or even a single agenda--they might as easily work against one part of nature on behalf of another, because they are the medium through which nature balances itself.

To an eye that could see auras, a powerful cleric would be very single of purpose and their aura would be in the shape (metaphysically) of their patron. They'd be a window, through which the patron can reach and act. A druid, instead, would be surrounded by a cloud of tiny spirits, all buzzing around and trying to get the druid's attention.

Those lend themselves to very different spell selections--a cleric's spells come from above (or below) and command the world to obey; a druid's come from within the world and "go with the flow", tweaking things as needed but not disrupting the flow.

Yeah I understand that approach.

But for me, I see a druid as a priest from the nature gods (I know that in the game druids dont need a deity but regardless), even the spirits of a forest come across as transcendent something from beyond (and above and below) they have rites and rituals that come from their religions. Mists of Avalon is a good example that illustrate what I am talking about or historical druids too (even if turning into beats was not part of their powers for the most part). If we had a Shaman class (draws power from spirits of the earth/land/dead/forefathers) I think it would be more fitting and group better with Barbarians. Even your description scream the word Shaman to me.
Thinking about it I think 4th ed left such a bad taste in my mouth that I really dislike the word primal because brings 4th ed vibes to me

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah I understand that approach.

But for me, I see a druid as a priest from the nature gods (I know that in the game druids dont need a deity but regardless), even the spirits of a forest come across as transcendent something from beyond (and above and below) they have rites and rituals that come from their religions. Mists of Avalon is a good example that illustrate what I am talking about or historical druids too (even if turning into beats was not part of their powers for the most part). If we had a Shaman class (draws power from spirits of the earth/land/dead/forefathers) I think it would be more fitting and group better with Barbarians. Even your description scream the word Shaman to me.
Thinking about it I think 4th ed left such a bad taste in my mouth that I really dislike the word primal because brings 4th ed vibes to me

If it's just about the name "druid", then I (mostly) agree. Except that I don't have any resonance with the historical use of the word "druid". It's lost all meaning for me in an RPG context because it's so culturally specific (and poorly defined). Historical druids were basically just (in 5e terms) divine-ish bards. Historians, wandering tellers of tales, touchpoints for civilization. They weren't even nature-god specific (or maybe all the gods were nature gods[1]).

Were I given carte blanche to rebuild the classes and rename things, I'd split the "nature guy who shapeshifts" archetype into two pieces:
* The Shaman would be a full-caster, whose "special thing" is auras. Summoning spirits, placing them at locations around the battlefield to have both offensive (mainly debuffs/control) and defensive (buffs/healing) results in an area around them.
* The ???? (Wilder? Shifter?) would be a martial (at most 1/3 caster) whose special thing is shapeshifting, taking on beast forms.

Shamans wouldn't have shapeshifting; ????? wouldn't have (much) spell-casting.

But both would be "primal" in origin. And I'm again on the other side of that--the 4e power source concept (not implementation, but concept) was one of the most interesting and productive parts of 4e and it was a shame they discarded it and went back to the lazy "arcane vs divine vs no power at all" split.

[1] in fact, the whole concept of "nature god" vs those that aren't gods of nature is extremely D&D-specific. In a traditional polytheistic society, every god was a nature god, representing some aspect of it.

[Psyren]

Flexibility in play, that's why. If you make a straight jacket, nobody will play it. Also, calling it fluff is lazy thinking.

My questions were largely rhetorical. I'm the one in favor of flexibility and refluffing, in case that's somehow confusing.


Oh, I would be all for making the spells a character can cast even more directly based off their fluff if I could, so they couldn't do that. But, sadly, we have a game that ignores flavor for gameplay too much already.

But you can do that. Warlock magic, at the end of the day, comes from their patron. If you don't think a specific spell fits a specific patron, don't grant it. Or, do what I do and just rename it.


I dont like that much.

Primal is something that says nothing to me in terms of mysticism, or as magic source, perhaps is just old habits, but primal is an attempt to differentiate clerics and druids, but for me druid magic as a expression of the divine is very fitting (even if you want it to come from nature itself). For me druids and clerics always will be priests from different religions and traditions but priests nonetheless. The fact that both will be in the priest subgroup only reinforces this.

In short, I dont like primal.

For the spell lists been available to all, I dont like that much either, warlock/wizard example comes to mind because as a pursuer of forbidden knowledge, it makes sense that the warlock has access to some spells that look like.... forbidden. Bard one was very distinct as well. This leads to homogenization and dont seem to improve things that much ( if at all).

Now a way to avoid homogenization id to give class and subclass abilities that are even more potent and outstanding, but seeing the bard that seems to not be the case

If you're against homogenization, then you should be in favor of druids not having all the same spells as clerics but green-tinged :smallconfused:


1. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that making it easier to print lots of spells and splat them about without thinking is lazy and bad design. Personally, they could do without printing very many new spells before they trim down what they have. Because bloat is bloat, and the spell lists (all of them) are super bloated with redundant spells everywhere even on the same list and a total lack of thematic content. But that's not what I was responding to there at all. I specifically detailed why I think the new design is horribly implemented and tends to make the game more generic and less balanced (unless they just go with "everyone's a full caster", which is a bad idea IMO as well).

2. I agree with Dienekes. Sure, Psyren, I see that you are all in favor of a fluff/crunch divide. But I personally think that that's a horrible horrible idea that produces bland blandness and encourages choosing the most powerful options without regard to settings, archetypes, or anything else.

1) "Existing spells should be trimmed before they can print new ones" then. Same conclusion.

2) So what's your solution then, after taking a hedge trimmer to the existing material? Spell lists for every class and subclass? Every patron?

[Arkhios]

It's a bold move, but one that I suspect won't live to see the final update.

That is, if the whole point is to be backwards compatible. As others have pointed out, it's already a mess as the Bard demonstrates.

Back in the day, cure spells were Conjuration, then 5e changed them to Evocation, and now they're changing them again... to Abjuration?!

Why on earth couldn't they just change it back to Conjuration, if they have to change it at all.

Thunderwave and Shatter changed to Transmutation I can respect, but won't accept either.

Besides, I'm a little biased. I would rather see that spell lists themselves are non-categorized. In fact, with this current direction, they could do just that: lump them all into same list, and let classes choose from whatever schools are appropriate for each. Then again, that goes against backwards compatibility as well.

[Psyren]

It's a bold move, but one that I suspect won't live to see the final update.

That is, if the whole point is to be backwards compatible. As others have pointed out, it's already a mess as the Bard demonstrates.

Back in the day, cure spells were Conjuration, then 5e changed them to Evocation, and now they're changing them again... to Abjuration?!

Why on earth couldn't they just change it back to Conjuration, if they have to change it at all.

If I had to guess, it's to keep them accessible to Paladins without forcing them to dip into Conjuration, Evocation or Necromancy.

[Marcloure]

Pathfinder 2E does it this way and it works greatly. I don't see how it would fail in 5e.

[Arkhios]

If I had to guess, it's to keep them accessible to Paladins without forcing them to dip into Conjuration, Evocation or Necromancy.

Smite spells are already evocation, as is Destructive Wave, and all are in the divine spell list (and were in the Paladin spell list). Likewise, Raise Dead and Revivify are necromancy, and are/were in Paladin spell list. I really doubt that is the reason.


Pathfinder 2E does it this way and it works greatly. I don't see how it would fail in 5e.

Because Pathfinder 2E is a failure. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Smite spells are already evocation, as is Destructive Wave, and all are in the divine spell list (and were in the Paladin spell list). Likewise, Raise Dead and Revivify are necromancy, and are/were in Paladin spell list. I really doubt that is the reason.

Maybe. The smite spells might get added to them separately in a "Songs of Restoration" kind of way. I really don't see Paladins getting Spiritual Weapon, Guiding Bolt, Flame Strike, or Dawn.

(To be clear though, I'm not totally against the idea.)

[Arkhios]

Maybe. The smite spells might get added to them separately in a "Songs of Restoration" kind of way. I really don't see Paladins getting Spiritual Weapon, Guiding Bolt, Flame Strike, or Dawn.

I dunno, this all seems too much trouble to be worth it. I get that they might be doing this to reduce the clutter such as in number of pages used for spell lists (which is a rather small number tbh) and possibly pave the way for possible new spells to be more easily applicable to any spell list. But honestly, I don't think this is necessary.

[Quietus]

For the concerns about spells that seem less like generic functions and more like class features, such as Find Steed/Find Greater Steed - they could give a fourth category of spells, "unaffiliated", and then give the relevant classes access to those spells. This would allow them to ensure that Find Steed is only available to, say, Paladins and Rangers - and each of them might make small changes to how the spell works. As long as that fourth list is kept mostly as iconic spells, it would be easy enough to keep it a relatively limited list, and it would allow for things such as a Cavalier subclass getting access to Find Steed as a ribbon feature, so they can generate horses.

[Arkhios]

For the concerns about spells that seem less like generic functions and more like class features, such as Find Steed/Find Greater Steed - they could give a fourth category of spells, "unaffiliated", and then give the relevant classes access to those spells. This would allow them to ensure that Find Steed is only available to, say, Paladins and Rangers - and each of them might make small changes to how the spell works. As long as that fourth list is kept mostly as iconic spells, it would be easy enough to keep it a relatively limited list, and it would allow for things such as a Cavalier subclass getting access to Find Steed as a ribbon feature, so they can generate horses.

I believe the appropriate name for an 8th spell school would be Universal (courtesy of 3rd edition, if I'm not mistaken), and yes, this could work.

I'm AFB but, assumming Find Steed and Find Greater Steed are Ritual Spells, Cavalier could follow the same principle as Totem Warriors and be able to cast the spell only as a Ritual. If on the other hand they're not Ritual Spells, they definitely should be.

But then, I'm struggling to think what other spells could/should/would reasonably fall into this category, because I can't think of many more than those two, and just maybe Find Familiar. I guess, in a sense, Smite Spells could form their own special group of spells, or they could be part of the "Universal" school as well, but that would open another can of worms, whether any other classes than paladin should be able to cast them. Personally I have nothing against it if Rangers would get the access too, but others might disagree.

[animorte]

Thunderwave and Shatter changed to Transmutation I can respect, but won't accept either.

I keep seeing this and it bothers me, folks. Both thunderwave and shatter could easily appeal to me as some sort of mechanical, almost deafening, explosion. But check this out: An extremely loud, sometimes repulsive example of cacophony, perhaps coming from a musician’s instrument, could easily make either of these spells happen.

[GooeyChewie]

I keep seeing this and it bothers me, folks. Both thunderwave and shatter could easily appeal to me as some sort of mechanical, almost deafening, explosion. But check this out: An extremely loud, sometimes repulsive example of cacophony, perhaps coming from a musician’s instrument, could easily make either of these spells happen.

Agreed. I think that’s a weakness of the “Arcane/Divine/Primal but only certain schools” set-up. It gives WotC less fine control over what spells are accessible to which classes. They could make specific exceptions, but doing so adds another layer of complexity. I applaud WotC’s attempt at streamlining the process, but in practice I think the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists are having the opposite effect.

[Unoriginal]

Anyone else is kinda worried due to how last UA presented the class groupings as "Arcane is uses by the Mage classes, Divine is used by Priest classes, and Primal is used by... Priest classes too" ?

[ZRN]

Agreed. I think that’s a weakness of the “Arcane/Divine/Primal but only certain schools” set-up. It gives WotC less fine control over what spells are accessible to which classes. They could make specific exceptions, but doing so adds another layer of complexity. I applaud WotC’s attempt at streamlining the process, but in practice I think the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists are having the opposite effect.

Yeah, it's like they never actually played an arcane trickster or eldritch knight and noticed how annoying it was to have to look at a long list of spells, then page through a 80-page chapter of spell rules to find each one to check whether it's arbitrarily slotted into one of the schools you're looking for. (ETA: just noticed they actually do include the spell schools in the list here, which helps quite a bit.)

I really don't like all the warlock spells just being dropped into the "arcane" list either. If there's no difference between Armor of Agathys and, like, Mage Armor, what are we even doing with multiple separate lists to begin with? Why do druids get their own full spell list but wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all get grouped in one "arcane" list? If it's just about party roles, druids are supposed to be doing the same thing as clerics - might as well just make a "mage" list and a "priest" list to go with their new class groupings. (Editor's note: WOTC, please do not do this.)

[zlefin]

It seems to me that one possible differentiator of primal from divine is that divine draws power from the outer planes, while primal draws from the inner planes.

That doesn't have any clear mechanical impact, but it does make sense from a cosmological perspective. Of course it doesn't clarify why/what arcane is and how it would fit in.

[Mastikator]

Anyone else is kinda worried due to how last UA presented the class groupings as "Arcane is uses by the Mage classes, Divine is used by Priest classes, and Primal is used by... Priest classes too" ?

That's not what it says?

Mages: "Adepts of Arcane magic, focusing on utility and destruction"
Priests: "Stewards of Divine or Primal magic, focusing on healing, utility, and defense"

Edit-

Of course each magic group has some description.
"A Primal Spell draws on the forces of nature and the Inner Planes. Druids and Rangers harness this magic."
"An Arcane Spell draws on the ambient magic of the multiverse. Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards harness this magic, as do Artificers."
A Divine Spell draws on the power of gods and the Outer Planes. Clerics and Paladins harness this magic. "

Doesn't seem very spooky to me

[Psyren]

It seems to me that one possible differentiator of primal from divine is that divine draws power from the outer planes, while primal draws from the inner planes.

That is in fact the literal differentiator between them per Character Origins.


Anyone else is kinda worried due to how last UA presented the class groupings as "Arcane is uses by the Mage classes, Divine is used by Priest classes, and Primal is used by... Priest classes too" ?

No, why? There's an Arcane Expert and a Primal Expert too.

[Unoriginal]

No, why?

Because that means two power sources and their associated spells have to check the same boxes in order to fit in the "Priest" group.

Or said differently: Primal gets two classes, one Priest and one Expert, to show what Primal is. Divine gets two classes, both Priests, to show what Divine is.

In comparison, Arcane gets *five* classes, three Mages and two Experts (Artificier is unlikely to be in the playtest for a good long while, but they said it'll be an Expert).

I guess I'm kind of worried the devs are making the source of the powers have more impact than in 5e, but don't seem to make more room for the new importance they've given those sources, design-wise.

As in, they're saying "oh yeah, Druids and Clerics are totally different on a fundamental level, even more than before", and when asked what they do their answer is "Priest stuff".

[Psyren]

Because that means two power sources and their associated spells have to check the same boxes in order to fit in the "Priest" group.

Or said differently: Primal gets two classes, one Priest and one Expert, to show what Primal is. Divine gets two classes, both Priests, to show what Divine is.

In comparison, Arcane gets *five* classes, three Mages and two Experts (Artificier is unlikely to be in the playtest for a good long while, but they said it'll be an Expert).

I guess I'm kind of worried the devs are making the source of the powers have more impact than in 5e, but don't seem to make more room for the new importance they've given those sources, design-wise.

As in, they're saying "oh yeah, Druids and Clerics are totally different on a fundamental level", and when asked what they do their answer is "Priest stuff".

You're assuming a correlation between Grouping and "power source" that has never been stated. And you definitely know (I hope anyway) that there's going to be many more differences between Druids and Clerics than their spell lists too just like there are now.

[Unoriginal]

You're assuming a correlation between Grouping and "power source" that has never been stated.

I mean, the recent UA directly states that Mages get Arcane and that Priests get Divine and Primal. That's correlation.


And you definitely know (I hope anyway) that there's going to be many more differences between Druids and Clerics than their spell lists too just like there are now.

I know there will be, but you also know that they have modified the Expert classes to make them share traits in order to fit their new "this is an Expert" definition, so it is logical to assume the Priest classes will similarly be made to share traits in order to fit the new "Priest" definition.

[Psyren]

I mean, the recent UA directly states that Mages get Arcane and that Priests get Divine and Primal. That's correlation.

Exactly, it says right there that Divine and Primal casters are both found in the Priest group. You were never promised that there would be a 1:1 relationship between Grouping and source. So what's the big deal?


I know there will be, but you also know that they have modified the Expert classes to make them share traits in order to fit their new "this is an Expert" definition, so it is logical to assume the Priest classes will similarly be made to share traits in order to fit the new "Priest" definition.

The traits Priests share/have in common are quote "healing, utility, and defense." Primal and Divine have those things in common, but are still different from one another.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or even better, not spells at all. Eldritch Blast is the posterchild example but Hunters Mark, Healing Word, Vicious Mockery, etc dont necessarily have to be spells in the first place
Here is an idea: What if they made the Bards Primal casters? Yeah, it's a bit of a leap,

They would also need to re juggle all of the spell lists a bit. I'll get the next few tables added to the page 1 post, but I am seeing a huge set of gaps already in how many spells are arcane and divine and Primal. That needs a re balance, I think.

[Psyren]

Here is an idea: What if they made the Bards Primal casters? Yeah, it's a bit of a leap,

They would also need to re juggle all of the spell lists a bit. I'll get the next few tables added to the page 1 post, but I am seeing a huge set of gaps already in how many spells are arcane and divine and Primal. That needs a re balance, I think.

I don't think this would work well. Primal is VERY low on Illusions and Enchantments, which are pretty iconic to the Bard.

[ZRN]

I know there will be, but you also know that they have modified the Expert classes to make them share traits in order to fit their new "this is an Expert" definition, so it is logical to assume the Priest classes will similarly be made to share traits in order to fit the new "Priest" definition.

My bet is they just rename Channel Divinity and Wildshape to "Primal/Divine Channeling" and say that's what the priest classes have in common. That would actually make some sense for druids, since half the subclasses use their wildshape to do completely unrelated things like summon fire elementals.

[GooeyChewie]

My bet is they just rename Channel Divinity and Wildshape to "Primal/Divine Channeling" and say that's what the priest classes have in common. That would actually make some sense for druids, since half the subclasses use their wildshape to do completely unrelated things like summon fire elementals.

I think you’re right. Wildshape could be the default option for Druids, similar to how all Clerics get Turn Undead. Then each subclass could provide its own spin on Channel Nature (or Primal Channeling, or whatever they decide to call it).

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think this would work well. Primal is VERY low on Illusions and Enchantments, which are pretty iconic to the Bard. Maybe Primal needs to be refigured, since the Bard in D&D comes from three different traditions: Skald, Minstrel/Jongleur, and Lore master from a druid-based Celtic culture.
Primal magic being tied to Music is in some of the fantasy stories I've been exposed to.
In other words, declutter the Arcane side by one, and add another Primal Caster. But that means moving some spells (like hallucinatory terrain) into the Primal list.
That's a substantial change from where 5e is, and it may be a 'step too far' for this allegedly backwards compatible evolution.

[Psyren]

Maybe Primal needs to be refigured, since the Bard in D&D comes from three different traditions: Skald, Minstrel/Jongleur, and Lore master from a druid-based Celtic culture.
Primal magic being tied to Music is in some of the fantasy stories I've been exposed to.
In other words, declutter the Arcane side by one, and add another Primal Caster. But that means moving some spells (like hallucinatory terrain) into the Primal list.
That's a substantial change from where 5e is, and it may be a 'step too far' for this allegedly backwards compatible evolution.

I'm totally on board with Hallucinatory Terrain being a Primal spell :smallsmile: I'll be sure to provide that feedback to them.

Part of the issue though is that the design space for Primal Illusions is tiny. There isn't a single Illusion in the PHB from Cantrips to 3rd level that is on the 5e Druid list currently. Rangers get Silence, so I definitely understand them making that Primal, but that's about it. Looking through the others, none of them seem to fit.

[catagent101]

I don't think this would work well. Primal is VERY low on Illusions and Enchantments, which are pretty iconic to the Bard.

Counterpoint: fey. Maybe the druid should get in on the illusions and enchantments game.

But yeah, there's a reason PF2e has four traditions, and while I get the desire to not look like they are copying PF2e wholesale chopping it down to three causes a lot of problems. They have to either reimagine at least one of the classes or throw in a bunch of convoluted stuff to make them all work like they used to.

[Segev]

Counterpoint: fey. Maybe the druid should get in on the illusions and enchantments game.

But yeah, there's a reason PF2e has four traditions, and while I get the desire to not look like they are copying PF2e wholesale chopping it down to three causes a lot of problems. They have to either reimagine at least one of the classes or throw in a bunch of convoluted stuff to make them all work like they used to.

Not every druid is fey-related; I could certainly see a fey druid subclass getting access to arcane illusions, or even just to "all illusions." Or to a specific list of illusions.

[Psyren]

Counterpoint: fey. Maybe the druid should get in on the illusions and enchantments game.

While I agree that fey provide a route into this kind of magic, it's still largely athematic to them. Charm effects certainly (Druid even had Charm Person before), but that's a tiny sliver of what Enchantments and Illusions can do. Things like Dominate Person, Color Spray, Fear, Mirror/Major Image and Invisibility on a druid might be a bit much.


Not every druid is fey-related; I could certainly see a fey druid subclass getting access to arcane illusions, or even just to "all illusions." Or to a specific list of illusions.

This too.

I definitely agree there's room for a fey-themed druid subclass (or bard subclass for that matter) that plays up this angle, much like we got a more fey-themed Ranger.

[ZRN]

On the positive side, the spell groupings allow some semblance of forward compatibility. Eg if a new Tashas comes out with a new spell, they can simply declare it ‘Divine’ and everyone will have access to it.


A bit off topic, but I always find it funny when people talk about forward compatibility with new classes in 5e. It's been 8 years and they've added a grand total of one class (and apparently they still won't put that one in the revised PHB). I don't think future-proofing for new classes needs to be a top priority!

[Psyren]

A bit off topic, but I always find it funny when people talk about forward compatibility with new classes in 5e. It's been 8 years and they've added a grand total of one class (and apparently they still won't put that one in the revised PHB). I don't think future-proofing for new classes needs to be a top priority!

Lists (including lists with school restrictions) might matter from a subclass perspective too though. We're highly likely to see it come back in 1DD core with the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, as well as noncore subclasses like the Divine Soul Sorcerer; even if new classes are going to continue to be rare in 1DD, we can definitely expect subclasses to be a thing that makes use of this framework.

[catagent101]

While I agree that fey provide a route into this kind of magic, it's still largely athematic to them. Charm effects certainly (Druid even had Charm Person before), but that's a tiny sliver of what Enchantments and Illusions can do. Things like Dominate Person, Color Spray, Fear, Mirror/Major Image and Invisibility on a druid might be a bit much.



Not every druid is fey-related; I could certainly see a fey druid subclass getting access to arcane illusions, or even just to "all illusions." Or to a specific list of illusions.

Oh that bit was me being facetious more than anything else, I am well aware that that's contrary to the druid identity. My point was that I think 1D&D is gonna struggle to keep the class identities with only 3 spell lists (which I don't think we disagree on?).

[Psyren]

Oh that bit was me being facetious more than anything else, I am well aware that that's contrary to the druid identity. My point was that I think 1D&D is gonna struggle to keep the class identities with only 3 spell lists (which I don't think we disagree on?).

I don't see it as a struggle at all. I like that Bard has gaping holes on the Primal front, it allows us to have a full caster in the Expert group without wrecking the game's balance. (Or at least, further wrecking it :smalltongue:)

[Segev]

Oh that bit was me being facetious more than anything else, I am well aware that that's contrary to the druid identity. My point was that I think 1D&D is gonna struggle to keep the class identities with only 3 spell lists (which I don't think we disagree on?).

The Bard kind-of shows us how they'll do that: Source + School, coupled to any bespoke additions being just part of a special class feature.

And then the Ranger gives us evidence that class features can take spells and make them More for particular classes that are meant to have them as iconic elements.

[Goobahfish]

It allows adding new classes without doing O(spelllist length) work.

This is the main thing. If you want to print splat books, you want to save on ink and paper right? If every time you add a new spell you have to specify each class which gets it, then you are printing extra lines of text for that spell.

Having a group of spells and having each class reference that group is an efficient way of doing it. I know, because that was what I did with my RPG.

BUT...

Arcane/Divine/Primal?

Why only three? Why only these three?
Answer: Because we already have: Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger... Druids & Rangers have 'nature spells'... primal. Clerics and Paladins... Divine. Wizards... Arcane. Bards, Warlocks?... eh? I dunno? Arcane sort of?

This is where this all breaks down. It is clearly backwards-engineered. If you were going to do this from scratch, you would start with the sources of magic and work forward to classes, not the other way around. Where is the arcane warrior (i.e. Eldritch Knight but more like a ranger/paladin build)?

I think the biggest problem here though is that the groupings of Arcane and Divine are the same... which to me is really bizarre from a world-building point of view. It makes sense that Wizards who 'study' magic might conceive of magic as 'conjuration' (creating), 'transmutation' (transforming)... there are some weird ones like 'necromancy' which I'm really not sure what that is meant to mean other than 'life-stealing... and some necrosis stuff, and raising skeletons?... you know 'grim reaper magic'. But for wizards it is relatively cogent?

For priests? Like... the god of transformation magic? WTF? Priests and druids are sub-themed entirely differently, so labelling their spells as if a Wizard had invented it (wizards being the only class that really ever had a tight relationship with the 'schools') seems wrong. Likewise for druids. Most players I know tend to attempt a 'thematic build' i.e. plants druid or lightning mage rather than D&D's weird schools. Eventually they give up.

TL;DR

I don't think it is a bad design principle, I just think it is a bad implementation.

[KorvinStarmast]

Added Evocation to the break down on page 1.

[Yakk]

This is the main thing. If you want to print splat books, you want to save on ink and paper right? If every time you add a new spell you have to specify each class which gets it, then you are printing extra lines of text for that spell.

Having a group of spells and having each class reference that group is an efficient way of doing it. I know, because that was what I did with my RPG.

BUT...

Arcane/Divine/Primal?

Why only three? Why only these three?
Did you play D&D 4e?

Arcane, Divine, Primal and Martial are the first 4 power sources.

After that came Psionic, and the pseudo-power source Shadow.

Those where taken from D&D mythos. There where martial PCs, magic-users and their subtypes, clerics and their subtypes.

Druids where an early subtype of cleric in D&D, but over time developed into their own thing, separate. Rangers and Paladin magic feels equally different. Hence Primal magic.

So, there was a bunch of design work done on those groupings in the 4e era of D&D. They even did grid-filling exercises.

Some of them:
Warlord: Martial Leader
Fighter: Martial Defender
Rogue: Martial Striker
Cleric: Divine Leader
Avenger: Divine Striker
Paladin: Divine Defender
Warden: Primal Defender
Barbarian: Primal Striker
Seeker: Primal Controller
Shaman: Primal Leader
Druid: Primal Controller
Swordmage: Arcane Defender
Sorcerer: Arcane Striker
Wizard: Arcane Controller
Bard: Arcane Leader
Ranger: Martial+Primal Striker Hybrid
Berseker: Martial+Primal Defender+Striker Hybrid

There was a set of 4 Psionic classes. Ardent (Lead ... with your heart!), Psion (mind wizard), Battlemind (think jedi) and the monk.



This is where this all breaks down. It is clearly backwards-engineered. If you were going to do this from scratch, you would start with the sources of magic and work forward to classes, not the other way around. Where is the arcane warrior (i.e. Eldritch Knight but more like a ranger/paladin build)?
In 4e it was the swordmage. And it was awesome fun.

Some kinds teleported enemies to them; some teleported to enemies. Some just grabbed them with curses. All of them would so stuff like throw swords and have them explode then put itself back together, turn to mist when hit, or ride whirlwinds.

And while the swordmage was both fun and ridiculous, the fighter was still considered a slightly better warrior-type (Defender) in 4e, because the fighter was battlefield dominating beast. The swordmage could manage to mess with enemies in multiple parts of the battlefield at once, but the fighter would just change the entire nature of the fight near themselves.

Ah yes, the time my mexican-wresting inspired fighter suplexed pelor. Good times. Good times.

[Goobahfish]

Did you play D&D 4e?
Arcane, Divine, Primal and Martial are the first 4 power sources.


Sadly not. It sounds like it would have at least been an interesting experience. I did the jump from 3.0, 3.5, 3.PF, 5... and now potentially 5.1?

The grid-filling exercise is often useful just for working out characters that should exist but don't (Inquisitor from PF rings a bell here Priest/Rogue).

The issue I think 4E had (based on my reading) was that power source was little more than a gloss and you may have well just written (Oogle Boogle power) in many cases because mechanically everything was virtually identical.

At its core, I think that is what vexes me about the Arcane/Divine/Primal distinction. They aren't real. Take one level in cleric and now you can cast Cure Wounds with 'Arcane' spell slots. Obviously multiclassing in 3/3.5 was pretty horrendous but if 'all spells are spells' is one truth of 5e, then having these distinctions real pushes hard against the fluff.

Perhaps there is a deeper philosophical discussion as to why wizards can't cast Cure Wounds and Clerics can't cast Fireball (except they can).

My general preference, is that if you are going to have these distinctions (Arcane/Divine) there should be some mechanical difference between them that makes them 'feel different'. Converting one power into the other should 'feel' like a conversion.

If each 'school' was a lot more coherent and 'tightly themed' and there were lots of schools (rather than 8) I think I would have less concern.

[Yakk]

The issue I think 4E had (based on my reading) was that power source was little more than a gloss and you may have well just written (Oogle Boogle power) in many cases because mechanically everything was virtually identical.
In 4e, the first classes where formatted identically, and they used the same resources (AEDU powers).

But in play, you wouldn't mistake a Divine PC for a Martial PC for an Arcane PC. Sometimes a Primal PC would look a bit Martial (Barbarian), but the Barbarian could take on the rage of a cave bear and grow in size; a purely martial character wouldn't do that.

The Primal Defender did a pseudo-shape change as their "best" type of move. The Fighter would enter a stance, and roar a challenge, drawing in the weak willed to their doom. The Rogue would throw daggers and blind a pile of targets, or jump up on a foe and knock them out, then eviscerate them with an auto-crit. The wizard would form an illusion of a great treasure, then fill the area with lava. The cleric would emit an protective aura while smacking people. The Paladin would lay on hands an ally, then compel the enemy to duel them. The swordmage would teleport 3 times, leaving arcane sigils on foes, and as the foes acted would appear again and parry the attacks on allies. The avenger would pick up a sword bigger than they are, grow angelic wings, swear to slay a particular foe, and fly crossing the battlefield to fight them. The ranger, well, she'd just fire between 7 and 80 arrows in 6 seconds, and when someone approached her she'd trip them and dance out of the way. The psion would TK smack foes around, leaving them open for their allies. Etc.

Mechanically, they are all using encounter/daily/utility powers, but they did a decent job of making the powers be grounded in power source, role and class.

Moreso than spells in 5e and 3e, honestly. Because there was no central list, each class had unique abilities; only wizards cast Fireball. A Sorcerer fire AOE would be mechanically different (usually smaller radius, less likely to leave zones around).

[Arkhios]

In 4e, the first classes where formatted identically, and they used the same resources (AEDU powers).

But in play, you wouldn't mistake a Divine PC for a Martial PC for an Arcane PC. Sometimes a Primal PC would look a bit Martial (Barbarian), but the Barbarian could take on the rage of a cave bear and grow in size; a purely martial character wouldn't do that.

The Primal Defender did a pseudo-shape change as their "best" type of move. The Fighter would enter a stance, and roar a challenge, drawing in the weak willed to their doom. The Rogue would throw daggers and blind a pile of targets, or jump up on a foe and knock them out, then eviscerate them with an auto-crit. The wizard would form an illusion of a great treasure, then fill the area with lava. The cleric would emit an protective aura while smacking people. The Paladin would lay on hands an ally, then compel the enemy to duel them. The swordmage would teleport 3 times, leaving arcane sigils on foes, and as the foes acted would appear again and parry the attacks on allies. The avenger would pick up a sword bigger than they are, grow angelic wings, swear to slay a particular foe, and fly crossing the battlefield to fight them. The ranger, well, she'd just fire between 7 and 80 arrows in 6 seconds, and when someone approached her she'd trip them and dance out of the way. The psion would TK smack foes around, leaving them open for their allies. Etc.

Mechanically, they are all using encounter/daily/utility powers, but they did a decent job of making the powers be grounded in power source, role and class.

Moreso than spells in 5e and 3e, honestly. Because there was no central list, each class had unique abilities; only wizards cast Fireball. A Sorcerer fire AOE would be mechanically different (usually smaller radius, less likely to leave zones around).

While all that is true, and I must add, evocatively described (I salute you), there is two arguably big flaws in 4e AEDU design. You only ever had so many powers of each category (IIRC at most 2 or 3 of each), and they were all predetermined to do a thing X and characters wouldn't have much options to choose otherwise, round after round, encounter after encounter, day after day, until they gained levels and could replace powers with other similarly predetermined powers that would do a thing Y. While, yes, a lenient and supportive DM might allow players to adjust their powers (such as change the fluff and maybe damage types), the default was what you see in the book, and that's not very open for creativity.

:edit:

I won't deny, though, that 4e was actually quite fast and fun to play, and very easy to learn, since you had only those few options to play with, especially if you used the power cards as an utility tool for ease of play. But it became easily boring after a while when you learn the tricks up your own and allies' sleeves and learn to expect what they can do. Over and over again. I guess it helps to emphasize that D&D is first and foremost a team effort, but it also encourages players to play other players' characters in addition to their own, and that's not cool. At all. Ever.

[GooeyChewie]

I honestly don't recall power sources having any impact on gameplay in 4e. I didn't even remember that power sources were a thing. I do recall enjoying the Shaman class, with getting to teleport my turtle (reflavored bear shaman) all across the board. I even had a little glass turtle for the miniature. I guess Shaman was Primal powered? Which, oddly enough, the times I've played Shaman-like characters in 5e they've been flavors of Cleric rather than Druid.

To Unoriginal's point though, I wouldn't say I'm worried[i] about Divine and Primal both getting a a class and a half while Arcane gets three full classes and two half classes. But I would say it makes using the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists for class spell lists [i]weird. In practical terms, it seems like the Primal list will effective be the Druid list, and Rangers get a subset of Druid spells. And likely the Divine list will effectively be the Cleric list with Paladins getting a subset of Cleric spells. Meanwhile the Arcane list seems like it will be spread too thin.

Ultimately I agree with Goobahfish that the problem is they are trying to backwards-engineer a system onto classes which were not designed for it. If they started from scratch WotC could more evenly divide up the lists. But the desire to keep up the appearance of backwards compatibility forces them to keep all the same classes, which are very Arcane-heavy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ultimately I agree with Goobahfish that the problem is they are trying to backwards-engineer a system onto classes which were not designed for it. If they started from scratch WotC could more evenly divide up the lists. But the desire to keep up the appearance of backwards compatibility forces them to keep all the same classes, which are very Arcane-heavy. Amen.
I have finished my breakdown of all schools and the A/D/P classifications here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25598009&postcount=19)
To say that it's not evenly spread out is an understatement.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25598009&postcount=19

[Psyren]

At its core, I think that is what vexes me about the Arcane/Divine/Primal distinction. They aren't real. Take one level in cleric and now you can cast Cure Wounds with 'Arcane' spell slots. Obviously multiclassing in 3/3.5 was pretty horrendous but if 'all spells are spells' is one truth of 5e, then having these distinctions real pushes hard against the fluff.

Perhaps there is a deeper philosophical discussion as to why wizards can't cast Cure Wounds and Clerics can't cast Fireball (except they can).

"All spells are spells" fits the fluff perfectly actually. Things like Bard's Magical Secrets and the Weave function on this very principle. Gods don't care about the distinction, and neither do many monsters; the restriction applies most to mortal/PC casters. Mortals who multiclass start to glimpse that truth, but they do so at the cost of needing to be multitalented (i.e. multiple above-average mental and/or physical ability scores) and spreading themselves thinner when it comes to acquiring the skills and training their class is known for.

There are other means to acquire off-list power but those have steep costs too, unless you're sticking to dabbling across multiple low-level lists which is easy (Magic Initiate, Fey-Touched etc.) But for Clerics to cast Fireball they need to be granted it from their deity through a specific domain (e.g. Light) which has a heavy opportunity cost.


My general preference, is that if you are going to have these distinctions (Arcane/Divine) there should be some mechanical difference between them that makes them 'feel different'. Converting one power into the other should 'feel' like a conversion.

If each 'school' was a lot more coherent and 'tightly themed' and there were lots of schools (rather than 8) I think I would have less concern.

The idea is that once you've jumped through whatever hoops to gain that power, you've already experienced the mechanical difference i.e. paid the cost. It's a lot harder to get off-list spells in 5e (above 1st-2nd level) than it was in 3.5 or PF.

[Segev]

I suspect we may see things like the Totem Warrior barbarian getting more access to the Primal list. Eldritch Knight becoming a full on class and half caster could be interesting. We may see Swordsage as a Fighter subclass replacing it, with a choice to be made of spell lists to take for further differentiation. Or maybe just subclasses for each list.

Might Arcane Trickster get a primal and divine set of siblings? Scout and Temple Thief, perhaps?

Maybe Warlock Patrons will determine much more about their lists. Archfey grant Primal spells, fiends and Celestials Divine, and Great Old Ones arcane.

[Goobahfish]

In 4e, the first classes where formatted identically, and they used the same resources (AEDU powers).

But in play, you wouldn't mistake a Divine PC for a Martial PC for an Arcane PC. Sometimes a Primal PC would look a bit Martial (Barbarian), but the Barbarian could take on the rage of a cave bear and grow in size; a purely martial character wouldn't do that.

Moreso than spells in 5e and 3e, honestly. Because there was no central list, each class had unique abilities; only wizards cast Fireball. A Sorcerer fire AOE would be mechanically different (usually smaller radius, less likely to leave zones around).

Ya, I had assumed the 'veneer' of the abilities would be much different. But, if you had a Primal Striker and a Primal Controller, did they in any way resemble each other mechanically, or only... culturally? If it is just the latter, I'm not sure what the tag 'brings to the table'. I like the idea of different schools/themes having different abilities even if only cosmetically (like the wizard/sorcerer example above).

The main thing I would point out, that in 5e, of the casters, Warlock is the one that stands out the most, simply because of the mechanics. While clerics heal and wizards fireball (which does feel different), playing a Warlock changes the personality of your character because you are conserving different resources in a slightly more fundamental way. If there is going to be a Divine/Arcane split, I would expect that to be more mechanically diverse to have any real meaning. Channel Divinity feels more cleric-y to me than level 5 cleric spells (for example).


"All spells are spells" fits the fluff perfectly actually. Things like Bard's Magical Secrets and the Weave function on this very principle. Gods don't care about the distinction, and neither do many monsters; the restriction applies most to mortal/PC casters. Mortals who multiclass start to glimpse that truth, but they do so at the cost of needing to be multitalented (i.e. multiple above-average mental and/or physical ability scores) and spreading themselves thinner when it comes to acquiring the skills and training their class is known for.

There are other means to acquire off-list power but those have steep costs too, unless you're sticking to dabbling across multiple low-level lists which is easy (Magic Initiate, Fey-Touched etc.) But for Clerics to cast Fireball they need to be granted it from their deity through a specific domain (e.g. Light) which has a heavy opportunity cost.

The idea is that once you've jumped through whatever hoops to gain that power, you've already experienced the mechanical difference i.e. paid the cost. It's a lot harder to get off-list spells in 5e (above 1st-2nd level) than it was in 3.5 or PF.

See, this is where it breaks a bit for me. Wizards are... magical researchers (it at least seems that way), and yet they kind of completely drop the ball on healing spells for no obvious reason to me. If the reason was, magic can't heal, I would be fine with that assuming divine-ness was some other kind of power (with its own mechanics). The fact that they sort of overlap so seamlessly (or it least seems so) plus the fact the bard has a few 'I pick all things equally' really doesn't work. Basically, what I am saying is the D&D gives the veneer of difference but if you look at it closely, all I see is a game (i.e. balancing), not a world (i.e. metaphysics). This isn't an inherently bad thing TBH.

However, if we're going to be splitting the spell lists non-arbitrarily (i.e. class lists) I would at least want those divisions to be pretty sound metaphysically. I'm really not convinced they are, hence my 'backwards-engineering' remarks. Like... bards can't heal because they are arcane except 'band-aid' yes they are because they have always been healers...

[PhoenixPhyre]

See, this is where it breaks a bit for me. Wizards are... magical researchers (it at least seems that way), and yet they kind of completely drop the ball on healing spells for no obvious reason to me. If the reason was, magic can't heal, I would be fine with that assuming divine-ness was some other kind of power (with its own mechanics). The fact that they sort of overlap so seamlessly (or it least seems so) plus the fact the bard has a few 'I pick all things equally' really doesn't work. Basically, what I am saying is the D&D gives the veneer of difference but if you look at it closely, all I see is a game (i.e. balancing), not a world (i.e. metaphysics). This isn't an inherently bad thing TBH.

However, if we're going to be splitting the spell lists non-arbitrarily (i.e. class lists) I would at least want those divisions to be pretty sound metaphysically. I'm really not convinced they are, hence my 'backwards-engineering' remarks. Like... bards can't heal because they are arcane except 'band-aid' yes they are because they have always been healers...

I see spells as patterns for accessing a deeper truth. They're...like models in physics. None of them are the fundamental truth, just different slices of it in different ways. And different spell-casting traditions, because of where/how they access their pattern library, are more amenable to different slices of the overall set of possibilities.

A wizard approaches things from a first-principles, bottom-up, intellectual methodology. They can cast what they can understand. But that really (should, if wizards actually had any coherence at all) limit them to fairly simple, more brute-force approaches. They're tops at throwing raw energy around and messing with inert matter. Because those are the sorts of things that are fairly easy to understand. They get a wide variety of relatively simple building blocks. Wizards are the physicists of the casting world.

Clerics, because they don't actually have to understand their spell-patterns at all, can handle lots of really complex targets. Like healing a living thing or bringing back the dead. They're limited because they only get what their god will give them, and the god is relatively far away and most gods don't really directly relate to the gross physical stuff. Clerics are the doctors of the casting world.

Bards get there via harmony and "going with the music of the spheres". Their magic mostly affects minds (or does so better than it does dead things), because those resonate with these harmonies/the harmonic approach is more natural for that kind of magic. But they can "improvise". So they can heal (mostly by tricking people into getting better), but their raw blasting AND more divine aspects are limited.

Sorcerers have the patterns innately, but since they have to channel it all by force of will, they're limited in their range (basically all their spells are baked in) both as individuals and as a group.

Warlocks are like sorcerers, except they cheated. They made deals to unlock certain patterns (either directly quid pro quo or the deal unlocked power that was already latent).

Druids make friends with and bargains with the omnipresent micro-spirits of nature. Convincing the spirit of the meadow to grow roots and entangle an enemy. Convincing the nature spirits to inhabit bodies of magical energy (summons). Etc. So their spells revolve around the things those micro-spirits can do.

Etc.

So for me, having different capabilities makes total sense. Except wizards are way too broad and "can do everything" because they have no real identity of their own.

[Yakk]

Ya, I had assumed the 'veneer' of the abilities would be much different. But, if you had a Primal Striker and a Primal Controller, did they in any way resemble each other mechanically, or only... culturally? If it is just the latter, I'm not sure what the tag 'brings to the table'. I like the idea of different schools/themes having different abilities even if only cosmetically (like the wizard/sorcerer example above).
So, mechanically, power sources had a lean; Primal leaned Defender, so a Primal Controller would have a sub Defender lean to abilities.

The main Primal classes all had a transformation subsystem; like, they shape changed (or took on aspects). Barbarian rages, Wardens, Druids. The Seeker didn't, but that was because it was a poorly designed poach of a class (it was originally designed with a different theme), and you can tell.

Every Divine class had a channel divinity, powers that did radiant damage, and a leader lean; the Avenger would have abilities that buffed their allies when striking.

Martial classes had stances and leaned striker, and elemental damage was almost unknown.

Arcane classes had a range of elemental damage, almost exclusively used implements (swordmage had some weapon powers, but a lot of implement powers that used a sword as an implement). Their abilities leaned controller. Preparation/power swapping was common.

So, they had similar mechanics, but for the most part no "this mechanic makes you power source X". Channel Divinity is about as close as it got to that.

[Psyren]

See, this is where it breaks a bit for me. Wizards are... magical researchers (it at least seems that way), and yet they kind of completely drop the ball on healing spells for no obvious reason to me.

They might be researchers but their magic comes from the background magic of the multiverse (Arcane), not from the Inner or Outer Planes (Primal/Divine). Healing magic specifically comes from those two places, unless you can channel it via music instead. Doesn't seem that troublesome to me.

[Rafaelfras]

If it's just about the name "druid", then I (mostly) agree. Except that I don't have any resonance with the historical use of the word "druid". It's lost all meaning for me in an RPG context because it's so culturally specific (and poorly defined). Historical druids were basically just (in 5e terms) divine-ish bards. Historians, wandering tellers of tales, touchpoints for civilization. They weren't even nature-god specific (or maybe all the gods were nature gods[1]).

Were I given carte blanche to rebuild the classes and rename things, I'd split the "nature guy who shapeshifts" archetype into two pieces:
* The Shaman would be a full-caster, whose "special thing" is auras. Summoning spirits, placing them at locations around the battlefield to have both offensive (mainly debuffs/control) and defensive (buffs/healing) results in an area around them.
* The ???? (Wilder? Shifter?) would be a martial (at most 1/3 caster) whose special thing is shapeshifting, taking on beast forms.

Shamans wouldn't have shapeshifting; ????? wouldn't have (much) spell-casting.

But both would be "primal" in origin. And I'm again on the other side of that--the 4e power source concept (not implementation, but concept) was one of the most interesting and productive parts of 4e and it was a shame they discarded it and went back to the lazy "arcane vs divine vs no power at all" split.

[1] in fact, the whole concept of "nature god" vs those that aren't gods of nature is extremely D&D-specific. In a traditional polytheistic society, every god was a nature god, representing some aspect of it.
Yeah, I agree. I said nature gods because we are in the context of D&D but yeah outside of the game every facet of the gods represents an aspect of nature.
Your concepts of what and how "primal" would be represented are what I would expect.
Maybe if 4e did a better job I would agree more with you. But I by no means think the divide between arcane and divine is boring. It´s the difference between magic and miracle, its better to explore in a societal context (wizards are feared, clerics are respected... etc) it feels more "organic" and less "gamist" for me. Coming from 2e AD&D and Baldurs gate 2 computer game as examples, these concepts are very rooted in me.
I dont oppose change, but unless its beyond doubt an improvement (4 e wasn't, and this time around seems to be the same ) I will stick to arcane/divine.




If you're against homogenization, then you should be in favor of druids not having all the same spells as clerics but green-tinged :smallconfused:




I think druids as they are now are very distinct from clerics and dont consider their spells to be "same as cleric but green" If the list is still the same but you just slap "primal" there you are just putting a (in my opinion) bad word there.
Druids are and can continue to be divine just fine, the spells in their list is what make then different. They are not green clerics, same way warlocks are not spooky wizards because not only their lists are different but the classes have very distinct abilities.

[Goobahfish]

So, mechanically, power sources had a lean; Primal leaned Defender, so a Primal Controller would have a sub Defender lean to abilities.
<snip>

So, they had similar mechanics, but for the most part no "this mechanic makes you power source X". Channel Divinity is about as close as it got to that.

Thanks for that. It clears some things up for me. I figured there would probably be at least some thematic elements across the different sources.


I see spells as patterns for accessing a deeper truth. They're...like models in physics. None of them are the fundamental truth, just different slices of it in different ways. And different spell-casting traditions, because of where/how they access their pattern library, are more amenable to different slices of the overall set of possibilities.

<snip>

So for me, having different capabilities makes total sense. Except wizards are way too broad and "can do everything" because they have no real identity of their own.

Yeah, so when I was designing my own RPG, I did have that Arcane/Divine, is it a real distinction discussion (bards too and druidy things). Really it is a case of what does magic do, how does it do it and what are the limitations thereof. For example the magic spell "Find Traps" is an example of a fairly asinine spell... unless your explanation is that there are trap-finding faeries which look around and find the traps for you and tell you where they are.

The reasoning behind this is because the 'information' about what 'constitutes a trap' is a subjective/linguistically defined concept. So you could imagine that different power sources could explicitly enable different 'capabilities'.

Likewise, maybe you can make and shape a fireball... but organic tissue is too complex to be able to 'heal'. Whereas, gods the literal creators of the universe can heal so a divine intervention is just that, the caster never needs the 'information' about how healing works for it to work.

Likewise, you could have some effects embedded in biology. I can see, but I don't know precisely how it works. Some creatures could 'telepath' but don't really know how they do it.

So if these were all separate ideas, I think it would make sense to me. The moment you say, I will use my level 9 wizard slot to upcast my 1 level in cleric's cure wounds spell... I don't understand what just happened (I accept it from a game point of view). Did you use arcane power to cast a divine spell? If so, why weren't you doing that before? Like what was the limitation? It can't have been the nature of your power, because that hasn't really changed has it? If so, should 'know all divine spells' be a feat? Clearly they aren't that different and so the differences become very superficial.

---

I designed my game so you could do these things in parallel reasonably well (i.e. hybrid classing rather than multi-classing) and there are avenues for converting between the different styles (a bit inefficiently and sometimes unidirectional). I suppose the confusion I have is that if they're going to have these labels, I'd want them to be at least a bit coherent and at the moment the combination of how the rules work and how multiclassing works etc. seems to contradict some of the underlying assumptions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thanks for that. It clears some things up for me. I figured there would probably be at least some thematic elements across the different sources.



Yeah, so when I was designing my own RPG, I did have that Arcane/Divine, is it a real distinction discussion (bards too and druidy things). Really it is a case of what does magic do, how does it do it and what are the limitations thereof. For example the magic spell "Find Traps" is an example of a fairly asinine spell... unless your explanation is that there are trap-finding faeries which look around and find the traps for you and tell you where they are.

The reasoning behind this is because the 'information' about what 'constitutes a trap' is a subjective/linguistically defined concept. So you could imagine that different power sources could explicitly enable different 'capabilities'.

Likewise, maybe you can make and shape a fireball... but organic tissue is too complex to be able to 'heal'. Whereas, gods the literal creators of the universe can heal so a divine intervention is just that, the caster never needs the 'information' about how healing works for it to work.

Likewise, you could have some effects embedded in biology. I can see, but I don't know precisely how it works. Some creatures could 'telepath' but don't really know how they do it.

So if these were all separate ideas, I think it would make sense to me. The moment you say, I will use my level 9 wizard slot to upcast my 1 level in cleric's cure wounds spell... I don't understand what just happened (I accept it from a game point of view). Did you use arcane power to cast a divine spell? If so, why weren't you doing that before? Like what was the limitation? It can't have been the nature of your power, because that hasn't really changed has it? If so, should 'know all divine spells' be a feat? Clearly they aren't that different and so the differences become very superficial.

---

I designed my game so you could do these things in parallel reasonably well (i.e. hybrid classing rather than multi-classing) and there are avenues for converting between the different styles (a bit inefficiently and sometimes unidirectional). I suppose the confusion I have is that if they're going to have these labels, I'd want them to be at least a bit coherent and at the moment the combination of how the rules work and how multiclassing works etc. seems to contradict some of the underlying assumptions.

Spells (patterns) are one thing; spell slots (the energy used) is universal. Anyone can shove more energy into something (if they have it available). But learning the pattern in the first place is another matter.

[Goobahfish]

Spells (patterns) are one thing; spell slots (the energy used) is universal. Anyone can shove more energy into something (if they have it available). But learning the pattern in the first place is another matter.

Yeah it makes a kind of sense... but then. If I can use 'wizard energy' to cast 'divine spells'... why wasn't I doing that originally? Like, why are divine spells so different to wizard spells that you can't do both. I, the wizardy researcher would just classify this weird ritual version of the spell to make the 'diviny' happen. I might not understand the complete underpinning of it, but I could just re-emulate the ritual to try to reproduce it. Obviously the gods might think I'm being a bit cynical here... sort of like the 3.5 Factotum?

So yeah... if there are separate sources of power... there is a bit of a contradiction (hence your same sources of power argument), but if the sources of power are the same and the only difference is the 'pattern', why would wizards arbitrarily restrict themselves away from 'divinish' patterns.

You would think a level 18 cleric/1 wizard was more pious than a level 1 cleric/18 wizard... but really what is happening is that the cleric knows more cleric-y rituals and the wizard knows more wizard-y rituals.

I suppose when it was class lists, I kind of just saw it as 'yes, we admit, it is arbitrary' whereas now it is 'but it makes sense'... maybe I don't know the original D&D lore well enough (planes etc).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah it makes a kind of sense... but then. If I can use 'wizard energy' to cast 'divine spells'... why wasn't I doing that originally? Like, why are divine spells so different to wizard spells that you can't do both. I, the wizardy researcher would just classify this weird ritual version of the spell to make the 'diviny' happen. I might not understand the complete underpinning of it, but I could just re-emulate the ritual to try to reproduce it. Obviously the gods might think I'm being a bit cynical here... sort of like the 3.5 Factotum?

So yeah... if there are separate sources of power... there is a bit of a contradiction (hence your same sources of power argument), but if the sources of power are the same and the only difference is the 'pattern', why would wizards arbitrarily restrict themselves away from 'divinish' patterns.

You would think a level 18 cleric/1 wizard was more pious than a level 1 cleric/18 wizard... but really what is happening is that the cleric knows more cleric-y rituals and the wizard knows more wizard-y rituals.

I suppose when it was class lists, I kind of just saw it as 'yes, we admit, it is arbitrary' whereas now it is 'but it makes sense'... maybe I don't know the original D&D lore well enough (planes etc).

The wizard literally cannot discover the cleric patterns via logical thought, research, and experimentation. They're internally inconsistent from that viewpoint. And that viewpoint is all a wizard has. He's not a researcher of magic, generally--he's just a student of one (limited, partial) way of understanding a piece of the much greater whole. He can only get them by connecting to the divine, by letting the divine cast the spell through him. Once he has them, he can power them with the same power, because there's only one power source. But different patterns. Effectively, divine magic is the god acting through the caster, fitting your hands and soul into his/her/its greater flow. But there isn't "wizard power" and "divine power"--it's all just power.

The ritual trappings (components, etc) are only triggers, keys to a pattern etched into your soul. And no amount of thinking, repetition, etc can teach you a divine spell. Or a primal one. Only a connection to the entities whose patterns they are.

When I say "pattern", think "circuit". It's the same electricity, but wizardry teaches one set of components and models. Divine spells represent something that breaks all the "rules" of wizardry, just like saying that you can have a conductor with no mobile charge carriers breaks electronics. Yet...it works, because it injects a fragment of the divine will into reality. Just like the bard convinces reality (via a circuit made of sound and mind, among other things) that the person really was healed.

It's like how (our current understanding of) gravity and quantum field theory are incompatible. Both provide predictions, both are predicting the same underlying reality...but the two predictions are incompatibly different where they overlap because the foundational axioms and methods are different. Sort of. But not really.

You have to reject the idea that everything in a fantasy world is amenable to experiment based understanding. The wizard literally, no matter how smart, cannot understand or create the divine effects unless granted them by divinity. It's not arbitrary. To a wizardly approach, those patterns are pure gibberish, with open circuits everywhere. And without the divine connection to close that gaps, they ARE gibberish.

And to a cleric, the same holds for wizard spells. They're just dense, dead things. Equations with no spark of truth. Might as well chant Maxwell's laws.

[animorte]

-snip-

This whole entire Wizard vs Cleric (I know not technically) casting concept sounds like a magnificent exchange in character about two different classes trying to explain to one another how and why they can both do magic but working through the frustration of not being able to do the same things. Coming to an understanding of one another and their conduits.

[Arkhios]

-snip-

Is that all your own head-canon or is that actually written somewhere in the books? Because if it's your head-canon only, it doesn't hold water so to speak. Don't get me wrong, it does make sense. But to be honest, it's all just nicely put play of words.

[Psyren]

Is that all your own head-canon or is that actually written somewhere in the books? Because if it's your head-canon only, it doesn't hold water so to speak. Don't get me wrong, it does make sense. But to be honest, it's all just nicely put play of words.

"Wizards can't learn divine spells without dabbling or multiclassing" is mechanical truth. If you don't like his explanation for it, you're free to come up with your own, but the rules are the rules.

[Jervis]

RAW clerics don't actually get spells from gods IIRC, i remember some interview about how clerics learn magic like wizards and just do it in a temple, thats why they can't loose their powers. As for spell research that was a rule in previous editions, pretty easy too if very DM fiaty.

[Goobahfish]

The wizard literally cannot discover the cleric patterns via logical thought, research, and experimentation.

So, I definitely find this unsatisfying. If the clerics are accessing a similar source of energy and the mechanisms by which they cast spells has some physical analogue, I'm not buying that you couldn't wizard your way into being a cleric.

I find the reverse especially unsatisfying (not being able to pray for a fireball). Like... if the gods can't do it...

I reasoned that prayer ought to be able to bolster magic (please gods make more magic for me) which seems reasonable, but inherently less efficient than doing it yourself. I reasoned that perhaps complex tasks cannot be done with magic where you are providing the information (because how do you make cells heal? it is super complex, far to hard to have in your mechanistic head). It was one of the reason that I struggled to come up with a suitable explanation for 'charm' and 'dominate' style spells. I mean... what are you doing there... if you are creating an illusion in someone's mind, surely the required changes are far more complex than just... screwing with their heart-signal and killing them outright. Because one is inherently simpler than the other, allowing for the complex thing at low-levels and restricting the relatively simpler thing at high levels doesn't work.

So those kinds of abilities were limited to divine-style characters (the gods change people's whims seems more reasonable). Likewise Bards could (not that I have spellcasting bards) because they are doing more a 'hypnosis' thing, rather than a magic manipulation thing. As bards are more creative types, the limitation on the wizard is more 'artistic skill' than 'technical know how'. There is an intuition to music for example which isn't really analytical.

But the thing is I've completely separated out the mechanics of how each of these things works. Having a common energy type really confuses my understanding of what that energy represents and what a spell actually is meant to be. Beneath the covers.

I do think your explanation is broadly cohesive, but it does feel reverse-engineered rather than forward-engineered.

[Jervis]

So, I definitely find this unsatisfying. If the clerics are accessing a similar source of energy and the mechanisms by which they cast spells has some physical analogue, I'm not buying that you couldn't wizard your way into being a cleric.

I find the reverse especially unsatisfying (not being able to pray for a fireball). Like... if the gods can't do it...

I reasoned that prayer ought to be able to bolster magic (please gods make more magic for me) which seems reasonable, but inherently less efficient than doing it yourself. I reasoned that perhaps complex tasks cannot be done with magic where you are providing the information (because how do you make cells heal? it is super complex, far to hard to have in your mechanistic head). It was one of the reason that I struggled to come up with a suitable explanation for 'charm' and 'dominate' style spells. I mean... what are you doing there... if you are creating an illusion in someone's mind, surely the required changes are far more complex than just... screwing with their heart-signal and killing them outright. Because one is inherently simpler than the other, allowing for the complex thing at low-levels and restricting the relatively simpler thing at high levels doesn't work.

So those kinds of abilities were limited to divine-style characters (the gods change people's whims seems more reasonable). Likewise Bards could (not that I have spellcasting bards) because they are doing more a 'hypnosis' thing, rather than a magic manipulation thing. As bards are more creative types, the limitation on the wizard is more 'artistic skill' than 'technical know how'. There is an intuition to music for example which isn't really analytical.

But the thing is I've completely separated out the mechanics of how each of these things works. Having a common energy type really confuses my understanding of what that energy represents and what a spell actually is meant to be. Beneath the covers.

I do think your explanation is broadly cohesive, but it does feel reverse-engineered rather than forward-engineered.

The answer here really is play another game. I don't mean that as an insult. It's a purely mechanical construct. If you see it as a serious problem a classless system fixes the issue altogether.

[animorte]

I find the reverse especially unsatisfying (not being able to pray for a fireball). Like... if the gods can't do it...

You mean, if they won’t. Remember there was some myth of old in which the gods agreed that they wouldn’t give humans the power of fire? But then one did and screwed it up for everybody.

There are just things that the deities might prefer to be more discerning about. I see the gods withholding information as something that has occurred through many stories, myths, and legends.

[Goobahfish]

The answer here really is play another game. I don't mean that as an insult. It's a purely mechanical construct. If you see it as a serious problem a classless system fixes the issue altogether.

Ha ha, I do of course (self-written RPG) but I also play 5E with a few groups (less effort for the other DMs). If 5E goes this way I'm not particularly fussed, most of the enjoyment of D&D isn't really embedded in the mechanics. This is more of a case of... looking at a design and noticing some fair large cracks running through it and thinking... ewww... cracks. How come they don't see it?


You mean, if they won’t. Remember there was some myth of old in which the gods agreed that they wouldn’t give humans the power of fire? But then one did and screwed it up for everybody.

There are just things that the deities might prefer to be more discerning about. I see the gods withholding information as something that has occurred through many stories, myths, and legends.

Yep, I don't have any issue with the theory that gods have... whims? It makes a lot of sense in the mythos of any pantheonic metaphysics. God X will, God Y won't etc etc.

But consider fireball. You are a light cleric. You pray, you get a fireball. So Fireball aint exactly an arcane spell... or are you when you casting it doing wizardy things? Well, probably not, you are probably doing some firey prayers. The way to get the fireball seems like it must surely be different. Except, at some point it is not. It is, after all, a Fireball. We end up at the same place. We even use a somewhat common energy source. So the energy source and the manifest effect are identical and apparently there are two ways of conjuring it (at least anyway). Now... one method seems to be limited only due to gatekeeping (whimsical gods) and the other seems to be some fundamental physical property of the universe (wizardy stuff). So... I suppose, some spells could be considered Arcane... but they aren't really because they are sometimes Divine. All spells ought to be at some level Divine (because anything else would be completely mental... atheistic magic... like magic god's specifically cannot do... - campaign idea forming).

The issue for me is that the label isn't really attached to the spell per se. It is a shorthand for spell lists for classes which are a tad more generic and thus easier to 'extend'. But it has the 'veneer' of worldbuilding on it. So the question is, is the veneer worth it? Is it functional? Already bards are basically showing that no... it is pretty silly... they can also cast divine spells... except do bard even cast arcane spells or are they just bard spells and arcane is meaningless. Like is the bard arcane or the spell arcane or both or neither? Whenever I peer at this I feel like I'm playing the 'shell game' where the answer seems like it is somewhere else but really isn't.

In practice I usually just subvert this with the DM's permission to mix and match spell lists according to some thematic character I am building so there is an obvious work around.

The more sensible divisions for me would be... there are spells!

Then there are wizardy spell schools (which are the own lists). Then there are domainy things (from which clerics construct their lists). Then there are Bards... which are just a nuisance. Then there are druids who like elemental things.

If each spell was tagged with some things, you could say druids get 'planty spells'. Illusionists get 'Illusiony spells'. Some clerics get 'Lifey' spells etc. That way it isn't trying to make the divisions make sense... rather make more concrete claims about the 'training' each class receives.

[Segev]

My own model for how spellcasting works was designed for 3.5, so has some flaws when dealing with the 5e pseudo-vancian casting, but does help explain the difference between clerics and wizards.

Wizards have contracts and legal papers dealing with the magical forces of the multiverse, and preparing spells for them is a process of engaging in various behaviors and doing various things that give them rights to specific effects. Their spellbooks are their notes on how to pull together various effects from combinations of obligations they can impose on magical sources and forces.

Clerics are parts of a divine hierarchy, and have specific effects their gods grant them for their faith and loyalty. They have, each day, magical effects assigned to them in the form of low level members of the divine hierarchy who each have a responsibility to the cleric who has the spell. It takes a certain amount of spiritual attunement to connect with and command them, but also just proper words and gestures and symbolic materials. But also just the raw faith and wisdom to trust in their god and inspire the obedience of those assigned to them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Non-light clerics can't pray for fireball because they're limited to what the gods will grant them...and those gods have chosen not to grant them fireball. In principle, the gods could choose to give clerics any spell that exists. The divine list in principle is "every spell". But they haven't (for whatever reason of their own) done so. The arcane list is, in principle, much more limited (because not every spell is amenable to experimental/direct discovery and application; some spells need the intervention of a being that is not mortal). But not in practice, because gods (again, for whatever reason of their own) have decided to limit their clerics.

I'll note that yes, that description is my own invention. But it's (a small part of) an explanation that actually productively describes D&D magic generally. Mostly. Without changing the mechanical elements. It's an attempt to figure out how can we explain the current state of things in a way that makes sense.

However, D&D magic is fundamentally an arbitrary collection of things lumped together arbitrarily. There is no complete explanation possible other than "that's the way they decided to do it", because it's internally inconsistent. And that's (IMO) a horrible thing. One of the reasons that the D&D magic system is the part holding back things tremendously (and fueling the martial/caster divide because it's basically just "yeah, whatever we want"). Redoing the mechanical underpinnings is much needed but will (likely) never happen.

Were I king of the world, I'd redo it at minimum by trashing the concept of fixed, uniform lists per class (or even per class group) entirely. Instead, I'd go through and create a system of "themes" as tags[1]. Each spell would get one or more thematic tags, as appropriate. Classes would provide (one or more of)
a) a set of "primary" tags
b) a set of "secondary" tags
c) a set of prohibited tags.
as well as a scheme for picking spells ("know all", "pick from primary except at levels X", "pick from primary and secondary", etc).

Then players, at character creation, would pick their tags, which would generate their character spell list. For example, a light cleric might have chosen the primary theme "Divine Warrior" and then his domain gives a secondary theme "Purifier". All clerics get "Healer", and their rule is "prepare from all themes". His spell list would be the union of the spells tagged "Divine Warrior", "Purifier", and "Healer". Another light cleric might have chosen the primary theme "Spiritualist", so his spell list is "Spiritualist + Purifier + Healer". Leading to two identical class/subclass combinations having radically different lists of spells.

But a more fundamental overhaul would probably abandon the idea of spell slots/spell levels and "pick from list of equals" entirely. But would be more work.

[1] edit: I've done a chunk of this work as a proof of concept (Google Doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AU6QqpZOSi8nrnBytp21wQmg3Ref2zI6Zu_pecVrKwE/edit?usp=sharing)). It's not perfect or in a usable state right now; it needs to have the tree shaken a few times to trim down the extras. Too many tags with small lists and redundant themes. But it's the basic concept.

[Unoriginal]

So, I definitely find this unsatisfying. If the clerics are accessing a similar source of energy and the mechanisms by which they cast spells has some physical analogue, I'm not buying that you couldn't wizard your way into being a cleric.

I find the reverse especially unsatisfying (not being able to pray for a fireball). Like... if the gods can't do it...

I reasoned that prayer ought to be able to bolster magic (please gods make more magic for me) which seems reasonable, but inherently less efficient than doing it yourself. I reasoned that perhaps complex tasks cannot be done with magic where you are providing the information (because how do you make cells heal? it is super complex, far to hard to have in your mechanistic head). It was one of the reason that I struggled to come up with a suitable explanation for 'charm' and 'dominate' style spells. I mean... what are you doing there... if you are creating an illusion in someone's mind, surely the required changes are far more complex than just... screwing with their heart-signal and killing them outright. Because one is inherently simpler than the other, allowing for the complex thing at low-levels and restricting the relatively simpler thing at high levels doesn't work.

So those kinds of abilities were limited to divine-style characters (the gods change people's whims seems more reasonable). Likewise Bards could (not that I have spellcasting bards) because they are doing more a 'hypnosis' thing, rather than a magic manipulation thing. As bards are more creative types, the limitation on the wizard is more 'artistic skill' than 'technical know how'. There is an intuition to music for example which isn't really analytical.

But the thing is I've completely separated out the mechanics of how each of these things works. Having a common energy type really confuses my understanding of what that energy represents and what a spell actually is meant to be. Beneath the covers.

I do think your explanation is broadly cohesive, but it does feel reverse-engineered rather than forward-engineered.

Think about this like that: why would Auril, godess of winter, be able to grant Fireball?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Think about this like that: why would Auril, godess of winter, be able to grant Fireball?

Or, for that matter, want to? (Similarly, I think the inclusion of animate dead on the generic cleric list was a mistake. That should have been Death cleric only. Why would Lathander help his clerics raise undead abominations?)

[Unoriginal]

Or, for that matter, want to?

I will concede that one can imagine peculiar situations where Auril may want her enemies to burn rather than the usual. Point is, fire is not in her nature nor in her power (although that may be redundant to say, as one can argue those two things are the same for a god).

If a worshipper of Auril had to fight a being that was immune to everything except fire, and Auril was to grant them a miracle, the cruel goddess would be much more able and much more likely to make the being vulnerable to cold too rather than to give fire powers to her worshipper.



(Similarly, I think the inclusion of animate dead on the generic cleric list was a mistake. That should have been Death cleric only. Why would Lathander help his clerics raise undead abominations?)

Indeed.

Healing and resurrection spells being a thing all gods can grant make sense from the "gods are the kind of beings that create and have some control over mortal lives" angle. Stuff like undead or fiery explosions should be depending on which god believes in you enough to empower you.

[Rafaelfras]

I will concede that one can imagine peculiar situations where Auril may want her enemies to burn rather than the usual. Point is, fire is not in her nature nor in her power (although that may be redundant to say, as one can argue those two things are the same for a god).

If a worshipper of Auril had to fight a being that was immune to everything except fire, and Auril was to grant them a miracle, the cruel goddess would be much more able and much more likely to make the being vulnerable to cold too rather than to give fire powers to her worshipper.



Indeed.

Healing and resurrection spells being a thing all gods can grant make sense from the "gods are the kind of beings that create and have some control over mortal lives" angle. Stuff like undead or fiery explosions should be depending on which god believes in you enough to empower you.

I agree with this.

The powers granted by the gods are very intrinsic to their nature.
In past we had more domains so it was easier to see clerics with access to different powers (or even unable to cast certain spells, like clerics of Selune unable to cast darkness), but it suits 5th edition just fine. The magic of a cleric is granted by the god, particular deities have aditional powers and spells that reflect the nature of the god. A cleric of Kossuth, god of fire will have power over that element (5th dont have fire domain, but ligh domain will do just fine). Their powers are granted.

On a universe where the Weave exist clerics pray to the gods that then manipulate the weave and the effect will occur.

Wizards on the other hand use esoteric formulas, rites, rituals and words of power to bring forth the desired effect. A magic spell. Their magic follows universall rules and are bound by the laws of magic. They developed traditions and forms of study that can bring more mastery in certain fields. but all wizards can cast any spell. In prior editions an specialization brought also forbidden schools , schools that had an opposite nature to your field of study or latter that you yourself choose to neglect that you simply could not understand or learn spells from it.

On a universe where the Weave exist wizards manipulate the weave directly through their spells, there is no outside interference.

Spells slots are your own energy. They are no different than Mana for example. In systems that use mana (or spell points in D&D) you dont have wizard mana and cleric mana. Its just the energy that the caster have to employ to feed the spell. So i see no conflict that a wizard 18/cleric 1 pray for a cure wounds and put a lot of mana (use a very high spell slot) into the effect.

The divide is very clear. They operate on very different laws and there is personal power ( mana, spell slots, spell points) and how deep you are into the knowledge and tradition of your desired class (level).

Thats how I understand it. Thats what I get from the rules, from 5th and prior editions as well

Edit: Just to add on the limitations of what each class can do.

Why clerics cant cast fireball: its not in the nature of their god, their god have very little to do with fire and when they use their power to generate flame (or the cleric call upon their god to do it) they get, sacred flame / flame strike.
The limitation for this or any other spell is applied by the DM/ writter as he see fit. But it is well justified in my view.

Why wizards cant cast cure wounds: Arcane magic is of theory/ research / practice of magic. It is not that its impossible. They just didn't discovered how to do it. Maybe they never will. Life transference was their best result until now
The limitation for this goes to the discoveries of the wizards and powers that can only be granted by the gods, who have domain over life and death, like healing restoration and Resurrection and can be determined by the DM/writer as he see fit and it is also very well justified in my view

[KorvinStarmast]

The wizard literally cannot discover the cleric patterns via logical thought, research, and experimentation. They're internally inconsistent from that viewpoint. And that viewpoint is all a wizard has. He's not a researcher of magic, generally--he's just a student of one (limited, partial) way of understanding a piece of the much greater whole. He can only get them by connecting to the divine, by letting the divine cast the spell through him. Once he has them, he can power them with the same power, because there's only one power source. But different patterns. Effectively, divine magic is the god acting through the caster, fitting your hands and soul into his/her/its greater flow. But there isn't "wizard power" and "divine power"--it's all just power.

The ritual trappings (components, etc) are only triggers, keys to a pattern etched into your soul. And no amount of thinking, repetition, etc can teach you a divine spell. Or a primal one. Only a connection to the entities whose patterns they are.

When I say "pattern", think "circuit". It's the same electricity, but wizardry teaches one set of components and models. Divine spells represent something that breaks all the "rules" of wizardry, just like saying that you can have a conductor with no mobile charge carriers breaks electronics. Yet...it works, because it injects a fragment of the divine will into reality. Just like the bard convinces reality (via a circuit made of sound and mind, among other things) that the person really was healed.

It's like how (our current understanding of) gravity and quantum field theory are incompatible. Both provide predictions, both are predicting the same underlying reality...but the two predictions are incompatibly different where they overlap because the foundational axioms and methods are different. Sort of. But not really.

You have to reject the idea that everything in a fantasy world is amenable to experiment based understanding. The wizard literally, no matter how smart, cannot understand or create the divine effects unless granted them by divinity. It's not arbitrary. To a wizardly approach, those patterns are pure gibberish, with open circuits everywhere. And without the divine connection to close that gaps, they ARE gibberish.

And to a cleric, the same holds for wizard spells. They're just dense, dead things. Equations with no spark of truth. Might as well chant Maxwell's laws. They way you do primal/divine/arcane in your world works.

Is that all your own head-canon or is that actually written somewhere in the books? Because if it's your head-canon only, it doesn't hold water so to speak. Don't get me wrong, it does make sense. But to be honest, it's all just nicely put play of words. It's how his campaign world works. Structurally, it works best if there is No Multiclassing. (He allows multiclassing, which is fine for our play group but, from a world coherence perspective it does not work so well across the arcane/divine divide).

So, I definitely find this unsatisfying. Then don't have classes.
Seriously. And don't have multiclassing. MC breaks a lot of good conceptual and thematic stuff that is a part of good world building.

[Goobahfish]

My own model for how spellcasting works was designed for 3.5, so has some flaws when dealing with the 5e pseudo-vancian casting, but does help explain the difference between clerics and wizards.

Wizards have contracts and legal papers dealing with the magical forces of the multiverse, and preparing spells for them is a process of engaging in various behaviors and doing various things that give them rights to specific effects. Their spellbooks are their notes on how to pull together various effects from combinations of obligations they can impose on magical sources and forces.

Clerics are parts of a divine hierarchy, and have specific effects their gods grant them for their faith and loyalty. They have, each day, magical effects assigned to them in the form of low level members of the divine hierarchy who each have a responsibility to the cleric who has the spell. It takes a certain amount of spiritual attunement to connect with and command them, but also just proper words and gestures and symbolic materials. But also just the raw faith and wisdom to trust in their god and inspire the obedience of those assigned to them.

Seems entirely cogent to me :)


However, D&D magic is fundamentally an arbitrary collection of things lumped together arbitrarily. There is no complete explanation possible other than "that's the way they decided to do it", because it's internally inconsistent. And that's (IMO) a horrible thing.

I think my dissatisfaction sort of starts and ends here. Everyone whose been posting about their version of the metaphysics have been posting fairly sensible, consistent things in general. They are the kind of conclusions one draws from examining the rules and trying to work out what is going on beneath the hood (sort of a magical discovery process) and I think the Quantum/Gravitation explanation works well here. Everyone is providing a version of their head-canon of the rules and they are generally 'mostly' good, but have a few... missing bits at the fringes.



Were I king of the world, I'd redo it at minimum by trashing the concept of fixed, uniform lists per class (or even per class group) entirely. Instead, I'd go through and create a system of "themes" as tags[1]. Each spell would get one or more thematic tags, as appropriate. Classes would provide (one or more of)
a) a set of "primary" tags
b) a set of "secondary" tags
c) a set of prohibited tags.
as well as a scheme for picking spells ("know all", "pick from primary except at levels X", "pick from primary and secondary", etc).

Then players, at character creation, would pick their tags, which would generate their character spell list. For example, a light cleric might have chosen the primary theme "Divine Warrior" and then his domain gives a secondary theme "Purifier". All clerics get "Healer", and their rule is "prepare from all themes". His spell list would be the union of the spells tagged "Divine Warrior", "Purifier", and "Healer". Another light cleric might have chosen the primary theme "Spiritualist", so his spell list is "Spiritualist + Purifier + Healer". Leading to two identical class/subclass combinations having radically different lists of spells.

But a more fundamental overhaul would probably abandon the idea of spell slots/spell levels and "pick from list of equals" entirely. But would be more work.

[1] edit: I've done a chunk of this work as a proof of concept (Google Doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AU6QqpZOSi8nrnBytp21wQmg3Ref2zI6Zu_pecVrKwE/edit?usp=sharing)). It's not perfect or in a usable state right now; it needs to have the tree shaken a few times to trim down the extras. Too many tags with small lists and redundant themes. But it's the basic concept.

I think this is the correct approach within the mechanical constraints of 5e (i.e., without throwing everything out). It works a lot better with the non-wizard classes. Clerics and Druid seem to be more thematic than actually... physical and so thematic divisions works quite well. The issue is the squirrely spells that don't fall neatly into one category, but having an ability grant a tranche of spells (like... Cryomancy) sits pretty well with me.


Think about this like that: why would Auril, godess of winter, be able to grant Fireball?
I don't disagree with this logic in the slightest. It is more about if one of the gods can cast fireball... calling it an 'arcane spell' is misleading. It's just a spell. Saying I have a cleric list and these are the spells that all gods agree are fine, makes total sense to me. Saying that those spells are 'divine spells' doesn't. Some of them can probably be cast by bards or wizards...

Moreover, and I think the biggest issue with this approach, is that there is a tacit assumption that all spells are either Arcane, Divine or Primal. There are no spells which are Universal (everyone gets them by default) or... Niche (i.e. no one gets the by default).


Then don't have classes. Seriously. And don't have multiclassing. MC breaks a lot of good conceptual and thematic stuff that is a part of good world building.

Yep, that is where I ended up. I made a skill-based game where the line between Divine/Arcane/Music/Shapeshifting/Technology is very stark, but because of the way it is put together it is still reasonably viable to play a Cleric-Mage.

I also think the original 5e approach (while being not particularly extension friendly) is reasonably sound. Spells don't have Arcane/Divine labels. Casters have lists of 'in or out'. Making a head-canon around the original 5e rules is a lot easier than 5.1.

[Segev]

I don't disagree with this logic in the slightest. It is more about if one of the gods can cast fireball... calling it an 'arcane spell' is misleading. It's just a spell. Saying I have a cleric list and these are the spells that all gods agree are fine, makes total sense to me. Saying that those spells are 'divine spells' doesn't. Some of them can probably be cast by bards or wizards...

Moreover, and I think the biggest issue with this approach, is that there is a tacit assumption that all spells are either Arcane, Divine or Primal. There are no spells which are Universal (everyone gets them by default) or... Niche (i.e. no one gets the by default).

Are the spell lists mutually exclusive? I would have expected at least some spells to appear on more than one list.

It may help to think of divine spells not as "the only spells gods can cast," but rather as, "the spells that all gods can and will grant their faithful." If some gods can and do grant additional ones, that can be handled either by domain spells or by unique boons the DM deigns to hand out on behalf of the gods. Certainly, if the DM decides that Arshenei, Empress of Thunder, grants her faithful disciples lightning bolt, the cleric receiving the spell is unlikely to complain about it unless he really really wanted something else in that third level slot (and if he gets it without it even taking up a slot...).

Now, why can't wizards figure out how to brute force the weave (or make the right contracts) to get those cleric spells? Because the gods have nigh-exclusive dominion over those spells, and don't bargain with the unfaithful. Bards who have Magical Secrets for divine magic have worked up enough faith of their own to draw divine favor, I guess.

[Psyren]

Are the spell lists mutually exclusive? I would have expected at least some spells to appear on more than one list.

A lot of spells are found on two lists (e.g. Cure Wounds is both Divine and Primal, but not Arcane; Protection from Evil and Good is Divine and Arcane, but not Primal; Message is Arcane and Primal, but not Divine; etc.)

A very small number are found on all three lists (e.g. Detect Magic).



It may help to think of divine spells not as "the only spells gods can cast," but rather as, "the spells that all gods can and will grant their faithful." If some gods can and do grant additional ones, that can be handled either by domain spells or by unique boons the DM deigns to hand out on behalf of the gods. Certainly, if the DM decides that Arshenei, Empress of Thunder, grants her faithful disciples lightning bolt, the cleric receiving the spell is unlikely to complain about it unless he really really wanted something else in that third level slot (and if he gets it without it even taking up a slot...).

Pathfinder does this too (PF1 anyway, not sure about PF2.) In addition to spells you get from your domain, clerics of some deities just gain the ability to prepare some non-cleric spells as cleric spells.


Now, why can't wizards figure out how to brute force the weave (or make the right contracts) to get those cleric spells? Because the gods have nigh-exclusive dominion over those spells, and don't bargain with the unfaithful. Bards who have Magical Secrets for divine magic have worked up enough faith of their own to draw divine favor, I guess.

My view on Magical Secrets is that Bards' power source is itself semi-divine. They're tapping into the music of creation itself, which the gods used to craft the multiverse. The vast majority of that has become background magic (Arcane) but high-level Bards found a way to access the divine parts of that.

[Witty Username]

Think about this like that: why would Auril, godess of winter, be able to grant Fireball?

That example is part of reason I think the cleric class in 5e (and the paladin for reference) could benefit from being rebuild from the ground up.

Clerics are supposed to be specific to one god or other and have specific powers related to that as per domains, but it actual practice you are fighting the spell list every step of the way with all of its healing, radiant damage, and light spells. It is a pain to do anything with it past the bare bones expectations.

As for Paladin, Always Lawful Good warrior of light, it works, anything else it says you can do, doesn't really work.



A wizard approaches things from a first-principles, bottom-up, intellectual methodology. They can cast what they can understand. But that really (should, if wizards actually had any coherence at all) limit them to fairly simple, more brute-force approaches. They're tops at throwing raw energy around and messing with inert matter. Because those are the sorts of things that are fairly easy to understand. They get a wide variety of relatively simple building blocks. Wizards are the physicists of the casting world.

Partially, wizards access deeper truths of the world, but this is as much an expression of creativity and imagination as it is the true state of the world. This is why schools and archetypes are fundamental to a wizard, it is as much about self expression as it is a desire to understand.

Contrast with clerics, which wield abilities in subservience to greater being, and have their (admittedly impressive) powers shaped by the will of those beings. The more they are a conduit for these forces and less a distinct entity, the greater their ability.


Which is why when referred to those that study differences between these forces, Arcane magic is known as "The Art" and Divine magic is "The Power".

This is also why the Sorcerer and Wizard are so similar, A sorcerer may not know how the forces of magic interact, but they do know how to express ones own will with great distinction.