Quote Originally Posted by Eric Diaz View Post
Interesting stuff... I don't think we really disagree. My point is: there is no reason to limits the types of casters; you could easily have an Int Warlock or Sorcerer, or even a Wis-based one (of course, balance is a concern).

You make some interesting points about Innate spells being harder to swap, but other than that... there is nothing stopping a deity from giving a new power every day, for example, or giving you a small list of powers that can never be changed. Both are possible.

There is no reason why there can be a "White Mage" character that can magically heal because he read a formula in an ancient book. Also, he cannot wear medium armor. The things aren't necessarily tied to one another.

Here is another post about the subject, but is concerned with OSR more than 5e.

The idea is that you could learn spells from a book, form a deity, a patron, another wizard's scroll, etc. Doesn't matter - you could create all types of wizards, sorcerers, etc.
That is fair. Take this less of a direct response, and more of an indirect response to your post. That's another reason to throw it up here than on your blog.

While I make the distinction that probably doesn't have to exist, I am not sure how I feel about the complete modular nature of what you suggest compared to the archetype nature of D&D. It's probably just an "agree to disagree" here though.

My thoughts on Source division more allows to develop a framework of classification. And to tie the Bards back to the Druidic roots of BECMI.

The concept of wearing armour is a training concept. A mage has to personally study to gain their power, sacrificing training time in martial proficencies. A cleric can be more martial orientated, since their power is externally provided, so they can train to use armours and weapons. Druids disdain armour out of tradition of normally doing things with minimal clothing or sky clad. All of these are fluff based reasons, but they work to make reasons for the base clqss proficencies.