Should spells be treated the same regardless of the source of the magic?

[Greywander]

D&D generally treats all spells the same, regardless of whether it's being cast by a wizard, cleric, or sorcerer. But should it?

This came up when I was thinking about spell components; does it really make sense for a spell to use the same components regardless of whether it is an arcane spell learned after years of study or a divine gift from you deity? For example, I could see all divine spells as being universally V-only, as they only involve uttering a prayer to your deity and the deity produces the effects, whereas sorcerers might not use components at all, as the magic is innate.

We could also consider things like an anti-magic field and other effects designed to thwart spellcasters. I think the issue here is that "magic" as a meta construct is being made into an in-universe thing; "magic" is not just one thing, but a collection of various supernatural effects that all work in completely different ways, and thus it doesn't make much sense that something like an anti-magic field would somehow thwart all of them. For example, one might imagine a hallow effect that renders fiends powerless, and so a warlock whose magic was given to them by a devil will find their magic no longer works within that hallowed area, while non-fiendish spellcasters are unaffected.

Part of this came from an idea for a big overhaul of 5e, part of which includes turning spells into more generic "powers", which could be arcane spells, miraculous wonders, sorceries, witchcraft, psionics, superpowers, or mutant abilities. There's some issues with this, such as not every supernatural ability being modeled well by the discrete packages that are spells, so there's definitely work to be done to make such a system functional. But the main thing is that I wouldn't expect all of these to adhere to the same rules. It just seems weird that the superhero who was bit by a radioactive flumph needs to do the same hand gestures and chanting as the wizard.

One way of handling this might be to come up with a list of different types of supernatural powers, such as the one in the previous paragraph, each with their own special rules. Sort of like an analogue of creature types, but for spells. Hence, a spell like Anti-Magic Field will specify which types of powers it works against. Perhaps part of those rules could be things like coming up with more types of spell components, listing out all the components a spell could use, and then only requiring specific components depending on what type of powers you have. For example, one component might be a prayer, which is only used to perform wonders, and not all wonders require prayers. So a spell may list a prayer as one of its components, but if you're an arcane caster or psion or mutant, you can ignore that component. The problem with this is that it requires listing a bunch of redundant components (e.g. a spell having either/both a prayer and/or incantation, depending on whether your a divine caster or an arcane caster).

Leaving homebrew aside, we're still left with the vanilla system that treats cleric spells the same as wizard spells, which makes it simpler for multiclass builds but still seems a bit strange. However, because of how expansive and complex the magic system is, any changes would require a lot of work to go through and adjust various spells or even create new ones. Some systems use a basic foundation of rules that then allow for emergent behavior, so making changes to those foundational rules is both pretty simple and will have a big impact; by contrast, D&D's magic system is pretty much the opposite, with each spell being its own isolated package of special rules that apply only to that spell, so making a small change in one place has pretty much no effect outside of that one specific spell. There are some general rules for spellcasting, but they make up a very tiny portion of the actual magic rules and don't affect that much.

[OldTrees1]

I like how Artificer has all spells include a material component. The need to use their arcane tools while casting helps mechanically represent the character concept of someone using those tools to do magic.

However, should it be tied to the class, or to the character? What if I used the Paladin class to mechanically represent a different artificer character.

Finally, while magic being different is interesting, is it interesting enough to be worth the extra overhead? This will vary across the implementation and person matrix.

I think you are onto a good idea for a variant rule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've unified the magic system for my world pretty heavily. Basically, spells are unified. Every single person casts fireball in much the same way--the material components give the right balance of aspects, while the somatic and verbal components are keys to a pattern. The spell slots are fuel for the pattern to create resonant effects.

The difference between casters is twofold--the source of their spells (that is, the knowledge and capacity to produce these patterns correctly, not the spell slots) and the "flair" with which they decorate the common components. So every single person has to say the same set of syllables (imagine those were Fus Rho Dah) with the same gaps between them, but one caster might say ArFUS IlRHO ImobaDAH while another might say FUSal RHOkala DAH. And while the same system of gestures is required, the intermediate "filler" might be different. And while a wizard learns fireball by studying the patterns of aetheric power as they experiment with words and actions, a Light Cleric "downloads" the knowledge from their deity, and a fiend warlock is taught the secret by the whisperings of his patron in his ear and a bard (via Magical Secrets) figures out the "chords and harmonies" by listening to the song of the world. A druid never really learns his spells--he instead contracts with little nature spirits to enter his body and move it through the right motions and words in exchange for a bit of energy (the spell slot). Etc.

So things like AMF, counterspell, etc all work the same for every caster.

[Lunali]

IMO the only reason they should be treated differently is if you're in a setting where they are significantly different. This is not, and should not be, the default setting, thus it makes sense that any rules that treat them differently would be homebrew.

Such a setting might, for example, have areas where some casters are unable to cast their spells while others still can. Such a setting would likely also have monsters whose powers would also be affected by such aspected magical areas. In such a setting, a four elements monk might find themselves able to cast in an area where neither the wizard nor the cleric can. A setting like this is likely to end up unfairly balanced for one group or another, and as such, should not be the default.

[Pandamonium]

Is it really an issue?

I always thought of it as all spells manipulate the same energy, weave, the same essence.
The difference is what grants you as the wielder power(what your magic operator is if you will ;)).
The force granting you the ability to manifest the spell is different (patron, deity, study, bloodline) but it is the same magics.

This was what made Psionics interesting for me in earlier editions in that it was clearly not the same magics.
Although in 5e psionics have been rather lackluster

[Amnestic]

I'm definitely of two minds on this.

On the one hand, 5e likes its simplicity (and so do I), so keeping all magic as "these are spells, all spells are the same" makes a lot of sense especially when multiclassing is in play. If MCing in existence, then I think it'd be easier to differentiate them since you'd only have to consider what your class could do, no worries about crossing over spells known and spell slots and the like.

On the other hand, I do find myself dissatisfied with it in a few ways. Artificers have verbal components on almost every single one of their spells, which I dislike immensely. If I'm playing an alchemist and my spell fluff is tossing vials of juice around (as encouraged by the artificer refluffing stuff), why on earth do I also need to yell something at the same time? Would a note in the Artificer spellcasting feature saying "you don't need V or S components, only M, but M applies to all spells you cast" matter? No for single class artificer, yes for multiclass. Frustrating.

Magic being so unified also cuts out some design space for targeting specific caster types with niche spells/effects. You can't have an anti-arcane effect or an anti-divine effect because they're the same thing, and while that simplicity is good, I think there's something to be said for subclass features or feats that include that sort of thing (though alongside something else, of course. Over specialisation ends up being worthless).

For a hypothetical 6e I'd like to see more of a difference between spell classes in how they cast and the magic stuff in general, but definitely with 5e, for now, it's probably best to leave as is.

[Kol Korran]

So... basically some of the design elements from 3.5e?

3.5e had some ingrained differences between types of magic (Divine casters needed a divine focus, psionics and magic could be utterly different, bards had to have Berbal components, and some powers/ abilities interacted with certain kinds of magic, and lets not even start on othet variants, such as binders , soulmelds and so on). It also made have use of designators ("Fire spells", "Good spells", "Mind affecting", "Languagge dependent") which made it easier to have rules interacting with them.

I feel like you are trying to do something similar, though perhaps more/less/differentl nuanced.

It'e fine, but not for everyone. And I'd suggest to check 3.5e, pathfinder or other similar systems for this. Half or more of the work has been done for you.

If you go that route, I'd suggest to just publish a variant rule set (similar to the various hard mode/ gritty roleplay variants) to suit your design intentions.

This has been discussed, and has been designed gor other systems. Shouldn't be that hard to adapt to 5e, other than the time required.

Good luck!

[quindraco]

I'm definitely of two minds on this.

On the one hand, 5e likes its simplicity (and so do I), so keeping all magic as "these are spells, all spells are the same" makes a lot of sense especially when multiclassing is in play. If MCing in existence, then I think it'd be easier to differentiate them since you'd only have to consider what your class could do, no worries about crossing over spells known and spell slots and the like.

On the other hand, I do find myself dissatisfied with it in a few ways. Artificers have verbal components on almost every single one of their spells, which I dislike immensely. If I'm playing an alchemist and my spell fluff is tossing vials of juice around (as encouraged by the artificer refluffing stuff), why on earth do I also need to yell something at the same time? Would a note in the Artificer spellcasting feature saying "you don't need V or S components, only M, but M applies to all spells you cast" matter? No for single class artificer, yes for multiclass. Frustrating.

Magic being so unified also cuts out some design space for targeting specific caster types with niche spells/effects. You can't have an anti-arcane effect or an anti-divine effect because they're the same thing, and while that simplicity is good, I think there's something to be said for subclass features or feats that include that sort of thing (though alongside something else, of course. Over specialisation ends up being worthless).

For a hypothetical 6e I'd like to see more of a difference between spell classes in how they cast and the magic stuff in general, but definitely with 5e, for now, it's probably best to leave as is.

Tying components to casting class instead of to the spell could be interesting - I don't think D&D has ever done that, due to its Vancian roots, but it certainly has promise. You'd want casters who need more components to have some other buff to compensate, and I'm not sure what would be best, but e.g. letting Artificers, Rangers, and Arcane Tricksters forgo V components in exchange for something seems like a fitting tradeoff, just as I would expect Paladins and Eldritch Knights to forgo S. That could be the dividing line, actually: Full casters are all three. Partial casters expected to use ranged weapons don't need V, and partial casters expected to use melee weapons don't need S.

[MrStabby]

There is a tradeoff between flavour and complexity and to me, this comes down favourably.

Look at protection from Evil and Good: you could have the holy water be the material component if cast as a divine spell, the powdered Iron for arcane casters and the only complexity needed is a bracketed statement after each componenet to say to what time of casting it should pertain.

If you were to delve beeper and make it have more pronounced mechanical differences then I still don't see much overhead in terms of complexity. It would be like upcasting - here is another way of casting the same spell and here are the differences. You only really need to know the complexity for the spells you know, and you only really need to know what is needed for your method of casting.

I think this is potentially a great way of having more flavour.

I actually think that more important is the verbal component - if a cleric says a prayer, then would a wizard or druid do the same? Would a cleric utter the same arcane invocation?


I do treat spells slightly differently for different classes in my games. If you want to identify a druid spell it is a nature check, for a wizard it would be an arcana check and for a cleric a religion check... but that is about all.

[Sigreid]

Don't forget that the real reason for focuses and material components is to give a way to reign in spell casting if the DM wants to.

[JackPhoenix]

Don't forget that the real reason for focuses and material components is to give a way to reign in spell casting if the DM wants to.

The real reason is that long time ago, Gary Gygax wrote a bunch of jokes (Fireball requires guano and sulfur: That's how you make gunpowder) and people just kept reprinting them. The actual impact of M components is lesser and lesser with every edition. Now, you don't even need the batcrap, just have a wand at hand.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've unified the magic system for my world pretty heavily. Basically, spells are unified. Every single person casts fireball in much the same way--the material components give the right balance of aspects, while the somatic and verbal components are keys to a pattern. The spell slots are fuel for the pattern to create resonant effects.
{snip}
So things like AMF, counterspell, etc all work the same for every caster.

Yep, KISS principle at work.

Is it really an issue?

No, it isn't. Overthinking is a thing we D&D players do sometimes.

The real reason is that long time ago, Gary Gygax wrote a bunch of jokes (Fireball requires guano and sulfur: That's how you make gunpowder) and people just kept reprinting them. The actual impact of M components is lesser and lesser with every edition. Now, you don't even need the batcrap, just have a wand at hand.

I had to shut down my guano franchise, laid off three people. The bats, on the other hand, did appreciate us not wandering through their domiciles looking for shrit ...

[Sigreid]

The real reason is that long time ago, Gary Gygax wrote a bunch of jokes (Fireball requires guano and sulfur: That's how you make gunpowder) and people just kept reprinting them. The actual impact of M components is lesser and lesser with every edition. Now, you don't even need the batcrap, just have a wand at hand.

Disagree. Magic traditions have always required materials and if you can take away a fighter's sword you need to be able to take away the wizard's tools too.

[Composer99]

I think the base game is fine as is treating spells all the same.

If you want to add a layer of mechanics differentiating spells, what I would consider doing is two-fold:

(1) As discussed in the OP, adjust spell components based on spellcasting class
It makes sense to me that for many spells, save complex rituals such as conjure celestial, a cleric could get by with a prayer and waving their holy symbol in the air, and maybe throwing a sprinkle of holy water around, while a wizard probably needs some kind of material component for almost any spell, while a sorcerer can get by with hardly any components at all (making subtle spell practically a default for sorcerers, even?). I wouldn't recommend trying to have a systematic approach - rather, each class or subclass capable of casting spells from spell slots should use those components that are thematic to it, including adding, removing, or substituting components.

(2) Adding tags/keywords that allow differentiating spells based on the source of the magic.
For instance, suppose you are a fiend warlock. Instead of treating all your spells as warlock spells - perhaps, in addition to doing so - what if you treat them as "fel" spells, that you gain through your connection to fiendish power? Any spell you know has the (fel) tag, the way, say, forbiddance has the (ritual) tag or is an abjuration spell.

Then, you can add in other rules that interact with those tags, just like wizard or eldritch knight features interact with spell schools or damage resistances interact with damage types. If you cast magic circle and add a line where it affects spells with, say, the (fel) tag when you choose fiends as a creature type hedged out by the spell, then your fiend warlock could be affected when an NPC uses magic circle in this way, or vice versa.

These two changes could give you a lot of mileage with how spellcasting looks and feels in a game without having to make huge swathes of changes to the spells themselves. At least IMO.

---

Of course, this is in many ways adding more of the descriptor rules from 3.X into 5e. Also, I've seen at least one 3rd-party commercial project that adds tags/keywords of this nature to spells, although not in exactly this way, so it does seem doable.

[SociopathFriend]

If this thread is more about mechanical value then I apologize but I just remembered my password so I might be a bit slap-happy to jump back into GitP.

We could also consider things like an anti-magic field and other effects designed to thwart spellcasters. I think the issue here is that "magic" as a meta construct is being made into an in-universe thing; "magic" is not just one thing, but a collection of various supernatural effects that all work in completely different ways, and thus it doesn't make much sense that something like an anti-magic field would somehow thwart all of them. For example, one might imagine a hallow effect that renders fiends powerless, and so a warlock whose magic was given to them by a devil will find their magic no longer works within that hallowed area, while non-fiendish spellcasters are unaffected.

I might be misremembering but the bolded part isn't quite true even back in earlier editions.

All magic is from 'The Weave' in the sense that both Divine and Arcane casters used it. Anti-Magic fields do not target the Wizard's fireball or the Cleric's bless but instead the Weave and their individual attempts at reshaping it.

It's not like you don't know fireball anymore when you walk into a dead zone. You don't lose your spell slots upon entering it either. In most cases IIRC magic items and even creatures can function once removed from those areas too.

Magic is not taken away from you in anti-magic fields. It just cannot manifest and the way it manifests is shared between all magic systems.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If this thread is more about mechanical value then I apologize but I just remembered my password so I might be a bit slap-happy to jump back into GitP.





I might be misremembering but the bolded part isn't quite true even back in earlier editions.

All magic is from 'The Weave' in the sense that both Divine and Arcane casters used it. Anti-Magic fields do not target the Wizard's fireball or the Cleric's bless but instead the Weave and their individual attempts at reshaping it.

It's not like you don't know fireball anymore when you walk into a dead zone. You don't lose your spell slots upon entering it either. In most cases IIRC magic items and even creatures can function once removed from those areas too.

Magic is not taken away from you in anti-magic fields. It just cannot manifest and the way it manifests is shared between all magic systems.

Right. AMF is a jamming field. It prevents manipulation of the weave in an area, it doesn't actually damage the weave. Summoned creatures pop back into existence on the other side. It doesn't end effects, it merely suppresses them temporarily.

[Pex]

For game mechanics keep all spells the same. The headache involved to treat them differently is not worth the effort, in my opinion. Flavor text all you want to show off differences.

[KorvinStarmast]

For game mechanics keep all spells the same. The headache involved to treat them differently is not worth the effort, in my opinion. Flavor text all you want to show off differences.

Good point. What the OP is looking at is the kind of thing a world builder writing a novel or short story can flex a bit on.

But this is a game. And sometimes, not making the game overly complex is of great value.

[Samayu]

D&D generally treats all spells the same, regardless of whether it's being cast by a wizard, cleric, or sorcerer. But should it?

This came up when I was thinking about spell components; does it really make sense for a spell to use the same components regardless of whether it is an arcane spell learned after years of study or a divine gift from you deity? For example, I could see all divine spells as being universally V-only, as they only involve uttering a prayer to your deity and the deity produces the effects, whereas sorcerers might not use components at all, as the magic is innate.

I dislike the idea of material components, so most of my ideas regarding spell components revolve around the gestures.

For divine spells, I think of it more like your god trusts you as his agent, and grants you magical abilities, so you don't need to study the art of magic. So whichever spell you pray for that day, you just know. But of course if you just know it, how would you know the components? Odin guides your hands? Otherwise, the components would have to be very simple (just review the prayer book in the morning), and then if they were the same as cast by wizards, then how do wizards cast?

Sorcerers could require the same components as wizards. Sure Sorcerers "just know" the spells, but maybe they instinctively "just know" the correct gestures? Sorcerers acquire magical talent by instinct, but they still need to practice. And maybe the practice is about getting the gestures right.

[Tanarii]

Personally I'm a fan. Even Psionics should just be Magic, if it ever gets released.

In terms of where they are treated the same, there's intentional flexibility built into the rules. For example I consider material components to be "alternate back-doors to cast the spell if I don't have my primary thematic casting tool on me". It's pretty clear that different traditions of casting are intended to almost always cast using their different implements.

Verbal and Somatic components are (usually) undefined by the spell (and if you by a Crawford tweet completely undefined), which means DM and possibly player option on how to define them, so long as they meet the basic requirements stipulated. Most importantly, that could mean that no two casters looks and sound the same casting the same spell, even if one learned from the other. Heck, the watching the same caster cast the same spell in two consecutive rounds may be fairly different, if V and S components control things like targets, range, or other spell parameters. This is one reason I was so disappointed that Xanathars made identifying a spell being cast so easy.

[Segev]

On the overhaul of magic to generic powers and the subject of different sources having different casting requirements, 5e Spheres of Power might be of interest to you. It has its own issues, but is at least in theory playable along side normal 5e casters. Or as a full replacement.

The Casting Traditions can be built by the DM to model whatever he likes.

I strongly recommend using their new base classes over the conversions, with the possible exception of the spherecaster sorcerer. The conversions are a bit clumsy and I think you could lift wizard subclasses to Incanter with minimal to no changes.

But it definitely does the conversion of spells to broader powers for you.

[greenstone]

In the Primeval Thule sourcebooks, magic comes from one of five sources: animism (druids, barbarians, some bards), theurgy (clerics), arcana (wizards, fighters, rogues, some bards), sorcery (corcerer) and pact (warlock).

There are magic items that "requires attunement by an arcana caster."

I don't think I've read any other rules, but it would be well within the scope of the game to have antimagic fields that only work against certain sources, or have counterspell not work against theurgy magic (no mere practitioner of magic can counter the spells of a god!).

[stoutstien]

For game mechanics keep all spells the same. The headache involved to treat them differently is not worth the effort, in my opinion. Flavor text all you want to show off differences.

IMO trying to force everything that is not mundane under a single category causes more issues compared to having 2-3 distinct ways of interacting with the weave. It wouldn't be difficult to have arcane, divine, and supernatural/primal/innate. You wouldnt need to reprint "you can cast this spell without expending a spell slot or providing material components...." If the rules had a single governing spell casting tag for it.

[Joe the Rat]

In the Primeval Thule sourcebooks, magic comes from one of five sources: animism (druids, barbarians, some bards), theurgy (clerics), arcana (wizards, fighters, rogues, some bards), sorcery (corcerer) and pact (warlock).

There are magic items that "requires attunement by an arcana caster."

I don't think I've read any other rules, but it would be well within the scope of the game to have antimagic fields that only work against certain sources, or have counterspell not work against theurgy magic (no mere practitioner of magic can counter the spells of a god!).

There are several magic items with specific caster class requirements, which generally fall in line with the Old Dyad. The difference is that the requirements are more about the thematics of the item, not the caster. Staff of the Magi? Arcane: Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard. Staff of Fire? Very Tim the Enchanter sort of item, so SWW again ...and Druid, because they are deep into fundamental elements of nature like that. Ditto Frost. Staff of the Adder? Classic cleric item, decidedly for divine casters: Cleric, Druid ...and Warlock. hrm.

You see traces of this in the spell lists as well - specific spells for specific classes... and then you get the wacky subtype crossovers, and Bards, because they are all over the place. There is nothing written into the system that says this caster does this, that caster does that, which makes them mechanically different. But if you wanted to establish zones of absolute authority, divine lacunae, or adapt something like the spheres of influence of Ars Magica (Areas rich in Fae control inhibit divine casters, sites of great Dominion or of holy aspect augment or limit spells depending on who your granting deity), that is solidly in worldbuilding, and should be discussed with the players.

I did a bit of twisting on base magic for my Shattered Seas game. Magic is defined, flavored, and to an extent impacted by its Source: Blood, Spirit, or Artifice. Blood magic is inherent magical ability - it grows from an inherent connection to magic (races with native spellcasting or magical aspects; grandma's taste in unusual partners), or one that has been woven into you (A process that creates an magic channel, a freak lab accident, higher powers creating a channel). Spirit magic requires active intervention or providing a conduit for spells by an otherwordly power. This could be a god, but it could also be small spirits with whom you have established connections or control. Artifice is pretty straightforward: Your casting requires arcane devices to work - generally each spell or family of similar effects requiring its own specific focus - Artificers being the notable exception, as they can create or retune devices on the fly to produce effects. Each also has its own benefits and limitations: Blood magicians have a harder time creating items, Spirit magicians may be vulnerable to dimensional interdictions and the whims of their service providers, and Artifice casters require their toys (adding M to all spells - the largest actual mechanical impact). The nature of the components for your ritual casting reflects in this as well - Artifice Rituals are basically involved apparatus or lab experiments, Spirit rituals have a lot of incense and bone rattling, Blood rituals would be more akin to pure meditation, any components being to focus their power or concentration, rather than entreating or generating the magics.

With the exception of Artificers, Clerics, and Druids, your Source is pretty much a matter of style and taste, and even then, you can be Eclectic, with a mix of aspects. For example, we have an Gnome Artificer (Artifice, except for a couple of Blood-based powers from his bloodline mark), A Water Genasi Dragonblood Sorcerer (Blood for her race powers, but otherwise summons bonded Spirits for all her spells), an Arcane Trickster dabbling into Warlock (Artifice, via multiple spell-specific gem emitters built into his Beholder Hat, and now a Blood/Spirit aspect from his Patron), a Bard (Artifice - she uses Enhanced Instruments), and a Divine Soul/Cleric (Mostly Blood, with some Spirit via granted powers).

The biggest impacts are in the setting's feel of magic - Artifice is the most common form of magic encountered day-to-day, with more common magic items reflecting this origin. Also, you can't just 'learn to cast spells' - you need a channel of some kind to give you access to magic. This means No Wizards*. It's made for an interesting shift in how things work, and has made some adaptations more complicated, but generally has made for an interesting shift in flavor. But again, this is on the sourcing - once the spell is cast, it is what it is. You could influence or impact the ability to cast differentially, and there is a definitive flavor to the different magics and casters (casters should always be looking to make their spells personal), but once out in the world, the effect is the effect.

* For the record, this was by player choice - when putting together this world, I told the players it was anything goes at character creation, but their choices reflect what is definitely in the world, and anything else is a maybe. Nobody picked Wizard. I almost got away with No Humans, a personal goal, but the two changelings chose default human forms.