Priests and Wizards as separate classes

[Yora]

Well. "D&D always did it" is a very good explaination. Even before there were thieves, there was a wizard class and a cleric class and a distinction between arcane and divine magic. But you don't have to have priests and wizards as separate classes. There are plenty of RPGs which don't have such a distinction. In Conan d20, everyone can learn magic and most sorcerers and spellcasting priests are simply of the scholar class because that's the fastest way to get more spells. In Dragon Age (both videogame and RPG), all spellcasters are mages, both wizards and heathen shamans (the main church condemns magic as demon craft). And in Star Wars the destinction doesn't even exist in any way, and force users in the RPG adaptations all have access to the same powers.

Personally, I quite like the idea of magic simply being magic, with the differences between spellcasters being in how they use it. They can be religious leaders and servants of their gods or not, it does not affect their spells.
The only thing that doesn't feel quite right with that is low-level wizards freely casting healing spells, but that's really mostly tradition than based on any hard reasons.

What do you consider to be good reasons for a game to make a difference between wizards and priests as character classes, or to treat them interchangeably?

[Jammyamerica]

Personally, I quite like the idea of magic simply being magic, with the differences between spellcasters being in how they use it. They can be religious leaders and servants of their gods or not, it does not affect their spells.

[Eldan]

Personally, I quite like the idea of there being a distinction. But not how D&D does it. It's supposed to be that the wizard casts the magic, while the priest asks his god to do it for him, right? Then why are the mechancis almost exactly the same? I'd prefer if there was some sort of difference.

Like, say, here's how I'd see it:

The wizard needs concentration, focus, books, formulae, complicated gestures and al lthose things. Attacking the wizard probably interrupts him.

The priest needs faith primarily. Perhaps he has a list of taboos of his faith to keep to. Perhaps he needs to perform a certain ritual every day and feast on certain days of the week. Or he can't touch dead bodies, or wield weapons or ride a horse. Perhaps he even needs a little ritual to call down the lightning, sure. But the magic is fundamentally not in the priest, but at best through the priest. Killing the priest won't stop his cause, but, at best, delay it.

[prufock]

The wizard needs concentration, focus, books, formulae, complicated gestures and al lthose things. Attacking the wizard probably interrupts him.

The priest needs faith primarily. Perhaps he has a list of taboos of his faith to keep to. Perhaps he needs to perform a certain ritual every day and feast on certain days of the week. Or he can't touch dead bodies, or wield weapons or ride a horse. Perhaps he even needs a little ritual to call down the lightning, sure. But the magic is fundamentally not in the priest, but at best through the priest. Killing the priest won't stop his cause, but, at best, delay it.

I do see the OP's point though, as these things seem more like roleplaying choices than mechanical differences. Psionics and magic are mechanically different; arcane and divine not so much, especially with so many spells crossing that gap.

[Thrudd]

Well. "D&D always did it" is a very good explaination. Even before there were thieves, there was a wizard class and a cleric class and a distinction between arcane and divine magic. But you don't have to have priests and wizards as separate classes. There are plenty of RPGs which don't have such a distinction. In Conan d20, everyone can learn magic and most sorcerers and spellcasting priests are simply of the scholar class because that's the fastest way to get more spells. In Dragon Age (both videogame and RPG), all spellcasters are mages, both wizards and heathen shamans (the main church condemns magic as demon craft). And in Star Wars the destinction doesn't even exist in any way, and force users in the RPG adaptations all have access to the same powers.

Personally, I quite like the idea of magic simply being magic, with the differences between spellcasters being in how they use it. They can be religious leaders and servants of their gods or not, it does not affect their spells.
The only thing that doesn't feel quite right with that is low-level wizards freely casting healing spells, but that's really mostly tradition than based on any hard reasons.

What do you consider to be good reasons for a game to make a difference between wizards and priests as character classes, or to treat them interchangeably?

It is a matter of training and social structure in the game world. The class describes your job and training, which are dependent on the setting, not something inherent in the character mentally or biologically. The distinction between arcane and divine describes differences in how two different orders have codified their magic and teach it to disciples.

Priests/clerics are trained by a religious order and given access to the spells and magic held in the tradition of that order. Their spells and the means to use them have been guarded jealously from others (maybe their gods really are granting them the spells, maybe not, but they definitely draw from some type of communal pool of spells that are made available to all of their order).
Wizards are trained in master/apprentice relationships. The spells they are able to access are the remnants of an ancient scholarly tradition which also has jealously guarded its methods. Notice some spells are used by both wizards and clerics...this is because they are using the same "force" to perform magic, and some effects were known or discovered by both traditions. Perhaps at one time in the distant past, there was no difference between the two, until some event or gradual social change resulted in separate and perhaps rival factions practicing their magic in isolation.

Perhaps it is not impossible for a wizard to learn/translate a cleric spell and vice versa. It would require a high level character with access to the time and resources to research and reverse engineer the spell.

[Lord Raziere]

given that I am more of a fan of Mage: The Awakening than DnD Wizards, I consider the distinction a little moot myself. but I have no problem playing a cleric or wizard as separate classes either. there are merits to both approaches. heck, you can imagine them both as very advanced users of nanotechnology if you want.

Edit: now I have an idea for a nation where wizards are the religious spellcasters, worshipping a god of destruction and wrath and such, while the clerics are the knowledge spellcasters at a College of Healers learning how to wield the positive/negative forces of the universe to benefit everyone around them.

[Vitruviansquid]

There are many good reasons to make different types of magic mutually exclusive.

You could have a more powerful set of spells useable by less powerful "chassis," like classes that can wear less armor, have fewer hit points, or whatever.

You could have classes with different specializations that have to work together, and so get different spell sets.

You could have classes balanced by their spell sets rather than having individual spells balanced against each other.

You could create spell sets with themes to make your classes... uhh... themed.

[Yora]

I do see the OP's point though, as these things seem more like roleplaying choices than mechanical differences. Psionics and magic are mechanically different; arcane and divine not so much, especially with so many spells crossing that gap.

But even those are different only if you are looking at the numbers. To an outside observer, the difference would be completely invisible except that one waves his hands while magic is happening. But the magic of magical creatures in 3rd edition D&D doesn't even do that, it's completely identical to the psionic abilities of psionic creatures.

[Eldan]

I do see the OP's point though, as these things seem more like roleplaying choices than mechanical differences. Psionics and magic are mechanically different; arcane and divine not so much, especially with so many spells crossing that gap.

That's my argument, though. They should be thematically different. Sure, D&D did it strikes again, but there's no reason they should be the same.

[Another_Poet]

If I was going to come up with my own ruleset, there'd be a big difference but it wouldn't be the difference D&D uses.

I think that in a pseduo-medieval world, priests shouldn't do "magic" at all. They should have the ability to petition for occasional big-level miracles, and the way those miracles come to pass should be out of the priests' hands. Wizards would be capable of predictable, controllable spells whereas clerics would only be able to invoke a much greater force that may or may not respond the way they want.

[Averis Vol]

In games like DnD I don't see a point in the distinction, because if either class wants a spell from the other school, there are plenty of easy ways to get them that are completely rules legal. Thematically, I agree that priests "Spells" should be all kind of vague and not distinctly up to them, but they should have a small pool of available abilities to heal and buff their allies.

Equally, I don't even think wizard should be a class. Everywhere else throughout history, what dnd describes as a wizard has actually been an alchemist mixing up molotov cocktails and anti venoms. Things that were considered witches and warlock which were purported to doing magic would be considered sorcerers. It wasn't until Vance and his books that that sort of "Magic' came to be, and I feel it was a poor decision to instill that kind of magic system to the game rather than a more historically founded one.* This ties again into the OP, being that throughout history the distinction between magiks has been relatively little, only changing in definition because it was called a miracle if used for good and witchcraft if it was used for anything else.



*All opinions are the posters opinions, and none of them are meant to be as confrontational as his sleep deprived ass probably has them coming off as. apologies in advance.

[Eldan]

One advantage of the vancian system, with neatly defined spells, is that it's really easy to put into precise terms for a rules-heavy system like D&D. So, I don't think it's a bad decision.

[Averis Vol]

One advantage of the vancian system, with neatly defined spells, is that it's really easy to put into precise terms for a rules-heavy system like D&D. So, I don't think it's a bad decision.

Ach, fair enough, I've never liked the system though. It seems like sort of a cheap mockery of more classic magic that actually took a toll on the body, and was less restricted in what you could cast because of what you prepared, and more "How long can you cast until your body fails on you?"

Though, with all the ways dnd has to make casters effectively immortal. thats probably a poor idea for a magic system.

[Yora]

I always convert all spellcasters to XPH spell points in my campaigs.
Retains all the advantages of D&D magic without suffering from slots.

[Eldan]

Question of taste, I guess. I find "magic points" terribly unimaginative and boring. It's just so empty, fluff-wise. Or at least, I could never come up with interestzing fluff for it myself, whereas vancian just seems to write itself.

[GoatToucher]

The idea of one flat spell casting class, will complete homogeneity of magic, is of complete disinterest to me. I like classes. I like the fluff that goes with them. Classless, point buy systems invariably end up having a go to build for maximum effectiveness (or at least go to elements common to most players). The distinction between the sources of magic (arcane and divine) is interesting thematically.

As others have said, I do with that there was more mechanical distinction, both in more diversity in the spell lists for different spell casting classes, and in the mechanics of spell casting (something more than "I cast X." "Okay.") I like the idea of making skill based rolls adjusted by different environmental factors, but that's just me.

I find Vancian casting ponderous in the extreme. Jack Vance had his idea for casting, and the notion has pretty much been ignored by the genre on all fronts, save DnD systems. Let it go, says I. Point buy is much more interesting, and allows much more dynamic play for casters. That said, the notion that some casters can learn an infinite number of spells is overpowered, even with the Vancian system. The problem would be compounded with point buy. Casters should have a limited amount of spells known per level (though greater than the current sorcerer's list by a lot), adjusted by attribute bonuses and magic items. Keep the spellbook, mechanic, though. I think the notion of discovering forgotten lore to be one of the more interesting factors of the current system.

[Eldan]

I still haven't seen a system that says "intelligence" as much as the Vancian anywhere. By its very nature, the system means that the wizard has to think strategically. Predict challenges, analyse situations and prepare themselves. It's just so much more interesting, mechanically than "Oh, there's fire. I cast resistance, because I have 178 points left."

[LibraryOgre]

I have more mechanical arguments with the idea of two separate classes; while I don't have as much of a problem with there being different kinds of magic that are somewhat exclusive, the problem is that clerics, from 1e on, tend to be simply too much. They tend toward vague roleplaying restrictions backing up a full caster with plenty of non-spell options. If you consolidate spellcasting into a single class more like the wizard (limited armor and weapons, lots of spell options), you can turn the cleric into more of the armored knight it was somewhat envisioned as, but with some limited capacity for miracles (i.e. spells).

In 3.x terms, a Cleric or Druid, with a Bard spells-per-day list, would still be a formidable class. A priest, using wizard stats but a cleric or druid spell list, would also be a formidable class. It's the aggregate that produces CoDzilla (or, 2e's version, the FR specialty priest).

[Eldan]

Oh, totally. If I did the classes, I'd probably mix the cleric, bard and paladin and then redivide them as one class that does inspiring oration (either a priest/preacher or a musical bard), one class that kicks the asses of evil in heavy armour and an unarmed miracle worker focused on magic over combat.

[Lord Raziere]

Question of taste, I guess. I find "magic points" terribly unimaginative and boring. It's just so empty, fluff-wise. Or at least, I could never come up with interestzing fluff for it myself, whereas vancian just seems to write itself.

.....

Vancian:
um....they load up spells into a gun and fire them?

Magic points:
they draw power from the essence of life draining it from the land around them

they the draw in the latent magic in the air through breathing and meditation, storing it all in their lung ands breathing out the magic in their spells.

the wizard through a ritual, draws in power from the sun and stars to use as energy for his spells.

a dwarf wizard uses the power latent in alcohol and converts it to magic energy so that he doesn't get drunk.

the warforged takes out his current arcane crystal and replaces it, recharging himself.

the wizard draws power from the passage of time itself, through a thaumaturgic connection to pocket watch and when it rings at dawn his arcane energy returns.

through a barbaric ritual he draws power from a powerful spirit of nature, on the promise that he will always respect nature in return like a druid but casting arcane spells.

the wizard keeps a little plant that grows a new fruit everyday, and he eats it and it gives him all the arcane energy he can use.

The wizard has multiple ways of regaining energy- one day he is setting up something during a storm to draw in the power of lightning to regain his arcane energy, the next he is using a ritual to regain some from a waterfall, and the day after that, he is gathering it from the volcano you have ventured into...

the staff he carries around is alive, and as long he carries it around, it feeds his arcane power, and he is careful not to draw too much from the staff lest it die.

the wizard is covered in pearl necklaces. as he casts spells, the pearl turns black from their usual white luster, until they run out and he has to chant for an hour for arcane energy to drawn back in and make them glow white again.

his own magical energy is like a big loyal boomerang or dog- no matter how far he throws it, it will regather itself after 24 hours and jump back into him in one rush.

the wizard wears a magic ring that he casts spells through, and he recharges it through this magic lantern he carries around with him.

the wizard finds some rocks, he puts his hands on them, they glow- and then disappear, being converted into magical energy into his body.

the pendant of fire hanging around his neck is thaumaturgically tied to a phenomenon that occurs every 24 hours on the Plane of Fire, known as The Flare, where there is a sudden surge of a near unlimited amount of energy for a few moments, during which the pendant draws in a lot of energy and stores it into the wizard. it is theorized this is the Plane of Fire's equivalent to sunrise, or some reflection of it.

all of his arcane energy is actually contained in the wizard's hat. thats why they wear the silly things. they must constantly wear it or the energy will spill out everywhere, and only through go through the wizards head so that spells can be cast.

and so on. now before you come up with your own list or say that those can be used for vancian system with some twisting, I don't care about those two things you might potentially say. I'm just showing you how some one can hold the opposite view: that vancian is about as interesting as cardboard and that magic points is much more flexible and open to creative flavoring in my view. these are all just stuff I came up with right now.

[GoatToucher]

Flexibility does not imply a lack of intelligence, particularly if spell points are a limited resource (as opposed to the "178 points" you describe). Vancian memorization is a limiter that means that you put all your eggs in the basket and hope for the best.

As for a scholarly divine caster that avoids CoDzilla, Adamant Entertainment put together the Priest class that does a pretty good job with good flavor to boot. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-...ainment/priest I am playing one in our current campaign, and we are normally hesitant to include 3rd pp.

[LibraryOgre]

.....

Vancian:
um....they load up spells into a gun and fire them?

Vancian spells are secrets of the universe... mathematical and scientific equations that are so powerful that once they are complete, they completely wipe themselves from the mind.

[Eldan]

I could link to some fluff I've written earlier, but Vancian boils down to this:

Casting spells is way, way too complicated to do it quickly on the battlefield. Instead, spells are cast ahead of time, during preparation, when the wizard has time to do an hour of calculations, rituals, meditations and materials. But the spell is not released. It's held back in the caster's head until the time is right.

So no. The wizard doesn't load a gun. They light a fuse and then, by sheer willpower, keep the explosive from going off until they need it to.

And that can be combined with all the things you mentioned above. Those are just ways the wizard can use to gain the energy he puts into his spells. But he can draw that energy from the environment, then store it in pre-cast spells (slots) or just sort of keep it hanging around until it runs out. The first needs preparation, insight, tactical planning. The second just sounds lazy. I know which I prefer to portray a man of scholarly wisdom and universal insight.

But I see no reason why those should boil down to "I know I can only cast 33.56 fireballs today before I'm too tired."

[Arbane]

Flexibility does not imply a lack of intelligence, particularly if spell points are a limited resource (as opposed to the "178 points" you describe). Vancian memorization is a limiter that means that you put all your eggs in the basket and hope for the best.

Or, in 3.5 at least, you carry a satchel full of wands and scrolls to be prepared for every possibility.

I've seen some systems that made a strong distinction between godly powers and wizardly powers - TORG had spellcasting as one thing and miracles as another, with completely different rules. RuneQuest (at least in older editions) has Sorcery (Flexible but hard-to-do magic, mostly long-term buffs and such), Divine Magic (really powerful, but you have to permanently sacrifice points from the magic stat to get it, and unless you're a priest, it's one-use only), and Spirit Magic (relatively minor, but just about anyone can get it, and in a typical RQ game, every adventurer has a few spells).

[Vitruviansquid]

I find Vancian magic systems to be too much bookkeeping and too predictable and vanilla "magic points" to be too predictable. There's tension in an unpredictable system that can make for dramatic moments during gameplay.

A magic system that might work better is to give casters a low number of "magic points" and have them roll a die whenever they cast a spell. The spell costs "magic points" based on a static number determined by how strong the spell is (magic missiles might be 1 and fireball might be 4) multiplied by a die, the size of which is determined by the casting class (a "purer" caster class might have a d6 while a "hybrid" caster class might have a d12). Spells a caster attempts but turns out not to have enough "magic points" for can either cause some kind of bad stuff to happen to the caster or just fizzle out.

[Lord Raziere]

Vancian spells are secrets of the universe... mathematical and scientific equations that are so powerful that once they are complete, they completely wipe themselves from the mind.

which doesn't make any sense to me.

sure you can go on about "equations you forget easily" and "arcane sentences that you finish when you cast the spell" but none of that sounds like fluff I like. I prefer "My enforce my will upon the world, as long as I can draw upon energy" I don't like the concept of being able to only blast four fireballs a day. thats too inflexible. I prefer casting any number of fireballs I want or need. If I need five fireballs, I'm out of luck in the Vancian system. If I need to cast fly or any other useful spell more than I prepared it for, I'm out of luck, you may like planning, but I know that the best plans of mice and men always go wrong. no plan survives contact with the enemy. I prefer to improvise and come up with clever stuff on the fly.

that and if I really want memorize information why would I pick information that automatically disappears when I use it? I learn information so that I may always use it, not so that it can be used up like a bullet and I have to remember it all again! that is a waste of time. inefficient. the only way it really makes sense to me is if you refluff it as someone enchanting a bunch of items so that they're recharged. I prefer the sorcerer over the wizard, the Psion over both and the Wilder over the Psion. my will, made reality, useable however I can according to my creativity. that is the magic I prefer, not this fire-and-forget nonsense.

yes I am a barbarian of magic, not all of us wish to use a complicated counter-intuitive system of slots and preparation.

[Spore]

If anyone knows the computer game "Gothic", it is pretty much what I see when I talk about priest mages and balanced magic. Spells are kept in runes that have to be written on runestones (basically fist sized oval stones). Like a normal spell book you can get ALL spells you want. But singular spells are rather expensive. We're talking about 200 Gold for a singular finished runestone of the first of 6 circles; in a game where you have to pay 1000 gold tuition and escort a sheep (additional 200 gold or side quest) tuition to even get into mage college. So having a large spell selection basically dictactes most of your character wealth.

Secondly Wizards have NO protection spells. Concentration always breaks with melee attacks. Ice Spells slow enemies, there are summons, fire spells are quicker and more deadly. Healing is channeled and for out of combat and there are control spells. Yet all magic is "courtesy" of gods or demons but without the mage being forced to be pious.

[Yora]

Is there even a theoretical difference between mages and priests in that game? I think the two are the same thing. The fire mages sure seem like a monastic order.

[Slipperychicken]

Why bother with magician classes at all? You could make magic a thing anyone could attempt. The idea being that any poor dope could study witchcraft and the occult for a few months, bungle the incantations, and risk draining his sanity or getting himself eaten by a shoggoth. However, getting beyond novice levels could allow one to bend reality in a more reliable fashion, although risks and complications would still exist.

[LibraryOgre]

yes I am a barbarian of magic, not all of us wish to use a complicated counter-intuitive system of slots and preparation.

Eh, so you don't like the system. That's fine. I don't find the system terribly counter intuitive, but I've also been using it for 20-odd years, and a lot of things can become commonplace in that time. My main concern is when people misidentify what Vance did with his magic system... there is an element of a "bullet in a gun", as you're fond of putting it, but in it's D&D application (especially AD&D), its very much a matter of making sure your gun has the right bullet when you come time to fire.

Why bother with magician classes at all? You could make magic a thing anyone could attempt. The idea being that any poor dope could study witchcraft and the occult for a few months, bungle the incantations, and risk draining his sanity or getting himself eaten by a shoggoth. However, getting beyond novice levels could allow one to bend reality in a more reliable fashion, although risks and complications would still exist.

In a non-class-based system, that works fine; you can make magic a thing that anyone can learn, and folks will pick it up as they please (though, IME, TTRPGs tend to require you to at least have some sort of talent to learn magic). In a class-based system, though, your non-casters are only going to pick up incidental magic (similar to 3.x's various "several cantrips 1/day" feats), and your casting classes are those who chose to specialize in it.