What if there's no divine/arcane distinction?

[Kiero]

Most fantasy fiction which features magic doesn't have arbitrary distinctions between "wizard" and "priest" magic. In general all magic is one. Or if there are divisions it's along entirely different lines (elemental, positive and negative, elder and modern, coarse and fine, and so on).

How might you do something similar in D&D, where all casters can access both kinds of magic?

What would happen to the balance of classes as a result? Would Clerics become the most powerful class, given they can cast in armour and Wizards can't?

[Riffington]

The armor distinction is equally arbitrary though. Moses didn't go around in armor, and never used weapons other than bare hands. Joan of Arc was either a paladin or a witch, depending who you asked.

If you want to merge them, just make wizards and clerics d6 hp, no armor proficiencies (but fewer penalties for armor), and let them choose a few schools/domains to cast from.

[banjo1985]

I think it would definitely overpower wizards by just taking down the barrier between divine & arcane. It would probably require a whole new magic system to get such a thing to work without doing a lot of damage to what balance there is between the classes currently.

However, it would make an interesting proposition if done properly.

[Dausuul]

Most fantasy fiction which features magic doesn't have arbitrary distinctions between "wizard" and "priest" magic. In general all magic is one. Or if there are divisions it's along entirely different lines (elemental, positive and negative, elder and modern, coarse and fine, and so on).

How might you do something similar in D&D, where all casters can access both kinds of magic?

What would happen to the balance of classes as a result? Would Clerics become the most powerful class, given they can cast in armour and Wizards can't?

If you just give clerics access to the wizard list and wizards access to the cleric list... yeah, clerics then become gods incarnate and nobody in their right mind would ever play a wizard. Or anything else, for that matter.

The armor thing is relatively minor, actually. The real issue is that clerics have superior hit points, attack bonus, saving throws, and no spellbooks to worry about.

If you want a simple fix to produce a single spellcasting class that can do everything, here's my proposal: Get rid of clerics, wizards, and druids. Take the cleric and druid spell lists and add them to the sorceror spell list. Finally, allow the battle sorceror variant for those who want their casters to be able to stand up in melee, and allow that feat from Complete Arcane that lets you cast in armor one level heavier than normal.

[Kiero]

There's always the Adept class from UA.

[Citizen Joe]

Some changes would be in order. Full casters couldn't wear armor, but there would be an intermediate caster that could wear some armor.

If I were to homebrew it, I'd make these changes:

• Arcane failure applies to somatic component spells only.
• Still spell feat gets applied to 4 specific spells, you can take it multiple times applying it to more spells.
• I would use either impromptu casting or prepared, but not both. In either case, priests don't have access to any spell on their list, they would have a restricted subset, either in their spellbook (if prepared) or as a known spell (impromptu).
• Full casters would use wizard/sorcerer baseline. Special abilities (scribe scroll/familiar, turning, etc) would be different between the specific types.
• 'Battle casters' would be similar to existing cleric rules with reduced spellcasting capacity in exchange for armor and weapon usage.

[Toliudar]

The generic spellcaster class might be another way to go, replacing clerics, wizards and sorcerers (and possibly druids).

BTW - arcane spell failure is already ignored for spells without somatic components.

[Kurald Galain]

The main problem is spellcasters having an answer to everything. A possible solution is to have a universal spellcaster class (with some armor skills, why not) that is restricted to a certain concept. Divide the spells into moderately-sized groups by theme (this needs more groups than the eight "schools", each with 5-10 spells per spell level) and let each caster choose one of them (for bards and other partial casters) or two (for the full caster class). Voila: you have a cool themed caster who is not the sole answer to everything.

For instance, I once did a Dwarven Stonecaster, who had a variety of spells from the wizard and priest lists that related to stone, focusing mostly on terrain mods with a few toughness buffs and a minor summon or two.

[Telonius]

If you simply give everybody access to all the spells? Even bigger than, "Spellcasters have access to everything," would be the "Divine casters have access to everything, and can choose which everything they access each day." Sorcerers would take a seat on the bench next to Samurai.

Another odd result: the most powerful prestige class in the game would be the Mystic Theurge. Accessible at level 5. Cleric3/Wizard1/MysticTheurge10/(any full casting class or PrC)6 would get you - at the cost of a single caster level - the following spells per day:
Level 0: 10
Level 1: 9+1
Level 2: 9+1
Level 3: 9+1
Level 4: 8+1
Level 5: 7+1
Level 6: 5+1
Level 7: 4+1
Level 8: 3+1
Level 9: 3+1

(You'd need that one level in Wizard to gain the extra spells). No restriction on which spells you choose, except for that extra domain spell.

[MrNexx]

No, Mystic Theurge wouldn't exist, because you would have neither divine nor arcane spellcasting levels to increase. You would just have Spellcasting Levels.

http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/2388.html

Really, I see zero reason, beyond tradition, that the arcane/divine spread was maintained.

[13_CBS]

Hmm...about the clerics + armour issue, IIRC in 2nd edition D&D clerics were supposed to be modeled off of the members of the Knight orders (Templars, Hospitallers, etc.), who were, of course, holy warriors wearing armor. They're not exactly paladins (who in turn are modeled off of Arthur's knights).

[MrNexx]

Hmm...about the clerics + armour issue, IIRC in 2nd edition D&D clerics were supposed to be modeled off of the members of the Knight orders (Templars, Hospitallers, etc.), who were, of course, holy warriors wearing armor. They're not exactly paladins (who in turn are modeled off of Arthur's knights).

Personally, I'd get rid of a cleric's ability to wear armor.

When you look at the history of the game, clerics started off as second-class spellcasters, second class fighters. Heck, elves were better spellcasters than they were at 1st level, because clerics couldn't cast spells until 2nd level.

In 1st edition AD&D, clerics kept the armor proficiency, but moved up in spellcasting... bonus spells and spells at 1st level, but still with limited weapons. 2nd edition introduced specialty priests, who could change around weapon, armor, and spell restrictions.*

3rd edition showed clerics whose only real restriction was "I don't know it yet" and "My BAB isn't quite as good as a fighter's".

*1st edition druids were treated as being almost completely separate from clerics, which is why I'm not counting them.

[Dausuul]

Personally, I'd get rid of a cleric's ability to wear armor.

Actually, I'd like to get rid of casting-based armor restrictions altogether, which always struck me as something of a kludge. Just have armor provide less of a bonus (maybe half normal) if you're not proficient with it. Then, if you really want to spend three feats so your wizard can wear full plate, more power to you. Considering that you could have spent those feats on Maximize Spell, Split Ray, and Arcane Thesis (Enervation), I don't think there's much of a balance issue going on.

[goat]

Hmmm, it does raise the prospect of being fireballed by an angry bear, which is strangely appealing.

[MrNexx]

Actually, I'd like to get rid of casting-based armor restrictions altogether, which always struck me as something of a kludge. Just have armor provide less of a bonus (maybe half normal) if you're not proficient with it. Then, if you really want to spend three feats so your wizard can wear full plate, more power to you. Considering that you could have spent those feats on Maximize Spell, Split Ray, and Arcane Thesis (Enervation), I don't think there's much of a balance issue going on.

In D&D, I like the restrictions, and think ASF works well for it. In a lot of other, non-D&D fantasy, I'm less down with it.

[Dausuul]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone reading this ever seen a wizard actually suck up the arcane failure chance and cast (other than verbal-only spells) in armor? I think the fact that people will eschew armor even when the chance of failure is only 5% says something about the importance, or lack thereof, of armor to a wizard.

[Kiero]

Actually, I'd like to get rid of casting-based armor restrictions altogether, which always struck me as something of a kludge. Just have armor provide less of a bonus (maybe half normal) if you're not proficient with it. Then, if you really want to spend three feats so your wizard can wear full plate, more power to you. Considering that you could have spent those feats on Maximize Spell, Split Ray, and Arcane Thesis (Enervation), I don't think there's much of a balance issue going on.

Absolutely. I've seen quite a few examples of armour-wearing mages in fiction and it's never been an issue. It's more a case of whether or not they're trained to wear armour, not that it seems to interfere with their casting any.

Hell in the Malazan Empire series all the cadre mages in the Malazan Army wear armour. Often leather or mail. Because they're soldiers as well as casters. Course it's also a setting that doesn't make a distinction between mage and priest (least as far as spells go, those are more setting-based distinctions than meaningful mechanical ones), many mages are healers too.

[Kurald Galain]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone reading this ever seen a wizard actually suck up the arcane failure chance and cast (other than verbal-only spells) in armor?

This is a matter of psychology. 5% spell failure is not really problematic, but neither is it worth a lousy +1 to armor class.

[Golthur]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone reading this ever seen a wizard actually suck up the arcane failure chance and cast (other than verbal-only spells) in armor? I think the fact that people will eschew armor even when the chance of failure is only 5% says something about the importance, or lack thereof, of armor to a wizard.

One of my characters did - a Mystic Theurge. Started as cleric, wore the armour. When I switched to Wizard, I kept it (and rolling the ASF every time) until I had magical equivalents.

Personally, I think tossing the arcane/divine distinction out the window would be a good thing (and, in fact, I do so in my skill-based magic system). It would get rid of many, many logical inconsistencies that just annoy the heck out of me, such as (just a couple of examples):

• Wizards can summon negative energy but not positive energy.
• There are no arcane healing spells - oh wait, whoops, there are, but for some mystery reason only bards can use them. Wizards can't comprehend the bards' brand of arcane magic at all. So much for "masters of the arcane".

[Fax Celestis]

There are no arcane healing spells - oh wait, whoops, there are, but for some mystery reason only bards can use them. Wizards can't comprehend the bards' brand of arcane magic at all. So much for "masters of the arcane".

Oh, no, they get it. They just have too much pride to actually sing while casting.

[MrNexx]

• Wizards can summon negative energy but not positive energy.
• There are no arcane healing spells - oh wait, whoops, there are, but for some mystery reason only bards can use them. Wizards can't comprehend the bards' brand of arcane magic at all. So much for "masters of the arcane".

Disrupt Undead. Cantrip. 30' range.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Personally, if all magic is to be universal, then I'd prefer to see spellcasters without armor. Simply put, without that limitation, why play any other class at all? Would I rather play a guy with sword, chainmail, and shield; or would I rather play a guy with sword, chainmail, shield and -spells-? The choice is obvious. Sure, a fighter has more hit points, but when we factor buffing spells in, that advantage is minimal.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Actually, I'd like to get rid of casting-based armor restrictions altogether, which always struck me as something of a kludge. Just have armor provide less of a bonus (maybe half normal) if you're not proficient with it.

Even this isn't necessarily required. A mage that chooses to wear armor ends up needing a higher strength score -- which provides him essentially no bonus as he's only using it to up encumbrance and will still rarely-if-ever make a melee attack roll. Even then, Mage Armor does the job really well.

Mage Armor also raises the issue of screwing spontaneous casters (potentially more relevant with 4E, as Vancian casting has apparently been at least partially dropped), as it's a spell that has tremendous value, once per day. This makes it, like many other utility spells, a great one to be able to prepare, and an absolutely shoddy one to actually know.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Most fantasy fiction which features magic doesn't have arbitrary distinctions between "wizard" and "priest" magic. In general all magic is one. Or if there are divisions it's along entirely different lines (elemental, positive and negative, elder and modern, coarse and fine, and so on).

How might you do something similar in D&D, where all casters can access both kinds of magic?

What would happen to the balance of classes as a result? Would Clerics become the most powerful class, given they can cast in armour and Wizards can't?

First off, if the distinction doesn't exist, either wizards and clerics can both cast in armor, or neither can, because the spell failure stuff is a result of the distinctions.

Clerics getting arcane spells is scary. Wizards getting divine spells is not too scary, because wizard spells are generally better anyways (and, you can actually make Wizards learn divine spells as arcane ones already). Anywho, the classes can still get different spells and be justified by saying that they focus on different "Schools." And of course, you could go even further with that, dividing up all the magic classes into different foci like the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage.

[mostlyharmful]

Scrap the arcane/devine distinctiona and introduce a meaningful school based system seems like a good idea to me. It makes NO sense that there are things that a wizard simply can't learn and it makes even less sense that devine casters get to wander around in full plate that they're proficiant with no less while the mage gets boned if he wears anything heavier than a t-shirt (except he doesn't, there isn't a spell failure chance from bulky clothing or gloves or being in a confined space or what have you).

It makes perfect sense to say that you can't learn everything about everything, specialization where you are forbidden from evver learning even the most basic cantrips is also a pile of badgers. Instead say you have a specialty school at full caster level, two affiliated schools at caster minus one and the rest are also rans at caster minus three.

[Thinker]

Archivist is practically a cleric with wizard spells and is one of the most powerful classes in the game. It is better than a wizard. I'd even potentially rank it higher than an artificer.

[horseboy]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone reading this ever seen a wizard actually suck up the arcane failure chance and cast (other than verbal-only spells) in armor? I think the fact that people will eschew armor even when the chance of failure is only 5% says something about the importance, or lack thereof, of armor to a wizard.

The magician in my RM group wears a leather jerkin, it's a -10, but since he's never cast anything in combat (yet) it's not that hard to compensate for.

There was a thread about casters wearing armour from another system not that long ago.

[Harlequin]

ASF is the only distinction between arcane and divine spells. As a result I see no reason to distinguish between arcane and divine spellcasting. Personally, I feel that ASF should be abolished, seeing as how all it really does is make CoDzilla more powerful. Other than that, really nothing would change from removing arcane/divine tags in your game if spell lists stayed the same. More meaning in spell schools would be nice as well.

[Mojo_Rat]

Theres more than ASF to distinguish between Divine and Arcane spellcasting. Alot of the phsycal turn me into a juggernaut of melee power spells are all Divine. Alot of the mass area affect spells are all arcane.

Do you really want spellcasters doing Rightous might and stoneskin and fireshield?.

While theres nothing wrong witht he Idea of No divine/arcane distinction you cannot really do it and just leave all the spells we have now just open to be taken.

[Harlequin]

Do you really want spellcasters doing Rightous might and stoneskin and fireshield?.

...How is this possible when the spell lists stay the same?

You're right, arcane spells tend to be blasting and divine tend to be buffing. But divine spells do not have a spell failure chance. Clerics can cast Righteous Might in fullplate and frequently do so.

It would appear your point is based on the first three sentences of my post.

Other than that, really nothing would change from removing arcane/divine tags in your game if spell lists stayed the same.

This is the fourth. Clerics don't immediately gain access to Stoneskin and Fire Shield (which I believe they get anyway, but I'm AFB). They aren't on their lists. They don't get them. It would take a few more minor tweaks (such as Clerics can only cast from Cleric Scrolls, Wizards from Wizard Scrolls, etc.) but in the end not a great deal would change, as I stated in my fifth sentence.