You already answered your question.
Different types of magic, from different sources. Spells that can be cast by both are just very common manifestations of magic.
It's more about who can use what magic. Wizards are normally not allowed to heal just as clerics are not allowed to use certain wizardly stuff. At least without investing something to achieve that (at very leas skill points to use magic device skill). If you want a character that started as a divine class and then progressed as an arcanist, the level system takes care of that. But no single class is allowed to be able to do everything from the start yet.
Arcane magic and divine magic are also sometimes disturbed by different things. Divine poers are generally quite sensitive to what their "faithful" do with it and if they actually are faithful in the first place.
|
It derives from the origins of the two classes. In the early editions of the game clerics were based on the Knights Templar and other crusading holy orders, and their spells were based on Judeo-Christian lore -- the healing spells, cure disease, banishment, water walk and raise dead are all Jesus's miracles, snakes to staves ala Moses -- and all of the plagues of Egypt are spells.
The wizard spells were based more on Merlin, fantasy lore, and fantasy art, so more shooting fire and lightning, clairvoyance, that sort of thing.
Over editions that got codified into Arcane and Divine magic.
this might turn into a history lesson, and if anyone has the old books im courius.
Why the two schools of magic? i know divine is from your chosen god, and arcane is thu study or nateral bloodline luck. this might blow some minds out here and maybe this might move to the homebrew collum, but would it break the game by bluring the line.
a AA that started as a Inquistor or Oracle?? a Wizard that could heal??
Clerics get medium armor, shields, can cast while wearing armor, more spells per day, two good saves as opposed to only one, 3/4 BAB, channel energy, d8 hit die, access to his entire spell list, and two domains powers. In any round that a wizard and a cleric of the same level casts the same spell, the cleric comes out on top.
The draw to playing a wizard/sorcerer is that he has access to spells that other classes do not and that are a cut above the rest. Give those spells to clerics and now you no longer have a reason for wizards or sorcerers to even exist.
Wizards are normally not allowed to heal just as clerics are not allowed to use certain wizardly stuff.
what about bards who can't use a cure light wounds wand if a cleric made it?
It's one thing having spells limited to certain classes, but we've got an additional restriction of power source as well.
|
I think that you are missing the point. There really isn't any good reason for splitting Divine and Arcane Magic up, and things like "this comes from this source" don't really matter for a definition of one form of magic or the other. For example, in Dragonlance, there are Divine Casters that draw or utilize the deities in any way and ALL Wizards recieve their Arcane magic from the deities of Magic.
Arcane/Divine is nothing more than a meaningless hold over, other than (sometimes) it hints at the power level of a type of caster. Most settings do not require a Cleric (or any Divine caster) to have a deity, and some do not even have deities, (per se).
In all honesty, I don't think that you could "blur" the line any more than 3E or PF have already done, as there really isn't one to blur. :)
Hi TOZ
One good reason is that it makes it much simpler to understand why X class cast Y spell but Z class can't for the most part. Druid being the oddball on this since even though its Divine it has spells noone else ever gets.
It makes it quite easy to introduce a war of gods where all divine casters are suddenly powerless and other such stuff ;)
|
|
I've never understood why there's a difference. It makes no sense to me. Classes like bards and witches straddle a middle line, and they're given specific spell lists and deigned arcane. If a bard can cast an arcane cure spell, why can't a wizard - supposedly the master of magic - research the same thing?
In my homebrew I just have one pool of spells, similar to Arcana Evolved. It's just magic. If you can cast spells (and most classes can), you can pick anything you want. The idea being that if the classes and spells themselves are balanced, you shouldn't need to make up ridiculous illogical arbitrary rules.
Of course, I don't use any of the PF classes as written, so YMMV.
Check out this thread from a few weeks back.
I've never understood why there's a difference. It makes no sense to me. Classes like bards and witches straddle a middle line, and they're given specific spell lists and deigned arcane. If a bard can cast an arcane cure spell, why can't a wizard - supposedly the master of magic - research the same thing?
In my homebrew I just have one pool of spells, similar to Arcana Evolved. It's just magic. If you can cast spells (and most classes can), you can pick anything you want. The idea being that if the classes and spells themselves are balanced, you shouldn't need to make up ridiculous illogical arbitrary rules.
Of course, I don't use any of the PF classes as written, so YMMV.
Having a spell available to learn by default is not necessarily the same as researching and developing a totally new spell.
That said, if you accept the PF classes as written, each class derives magical power from a different source: Clerics (and Druids, and even Paladins) derive their divine magic from the strength of their devotion to their chosen god or belief system - their powers are literally holy (or unholy), requiring faith. Wizards derive their ability to cast magic from long years of arduous study under more powerful wizards, and the fabric of their spells is determined from what that study reveals to them about the nature of magic. Sorcerers and Oracles *are* magic, empowered by different sources - Sorcerers get their magic by right of blood or destiny, whereas Oracles are chosen by Gods or Powers to be divine conduits at terrible strain until they master their gifts.
There's a theme building here, and that theme is Mortal v. Immortal - Wizards and Sorcerers, and arcane casters in general, derive their magical powers through mortal agencies, whereas divine power is given, sometimes forced, at the hand of Deities, Powers, or a more nebulous Aligned Concept.
Witches do blur the line, much as Summoners do, as both are arcanists who draw at least a portion of their power or capability to cast from otherworldly sources. Summoners, however, focus on one specific entity as an equal, whereas Witches are supplicants. The mere act of asking for power from an otherworldly source is not sufficient to warrant the Witch being a divine casting class, however, for the Witch invariably must enter into a pact or agreement for the power she obtains, something alien to the faith-based concepts of divine magical sources. Yes, a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin does also have a code of conduct, but it is one that they voluntarily embrace based on their beliefs and faith, rather than a mercenary agreement for the purpose of gaining their mystical powers in the first place. The fact that a Witch draws her powers and spells from an otherworldly conduit, however, is sufficient to allow for her patron to give her access to healing spells and some other powers that are usually limited to casters of faith and conviction.
Bards are less direct in the source of their healing magic. A bard creates magic, rather than being magic as other spontaneous casters are, through the purity of performance. Most often in stories and lore this will be represented as musical performance, where music soothed angers, spurred bravery, evoked panic, or took on a life of its own. (This, by the way, is not all that far off of the reality that our physical state can be dramatically effected by music and sound.) The magic of the music (or other performance, since PF doesn't want to push all bards into the musical corner), then, is wholly mortal in source (and thus arcane), but evokes and appeals to a grander scheme of things - mortals are flawed, yet can produce flawless beauty. This is sufficient to allow the magic of the music to accomplish some effects usually reserved for divine magic, for though the performance was created by a mortal, it's composition *is* divine. (I may not be articulating this point well, I apologize.)
I think that you are missing the point. There really isn't any good reason for splitting Divine and Arcane Magic up, and things like "this comes from this source" don't really matter for a definition of one form of magic or the other. For example, in Dragonlance, there are Divine Casters that draw or utilize the deities in any way and ALL Wizards recieve their Arcane magic from the deities of Magic.
Arcane/Divine is nothing more than a meaningless hold over, other than (sometimes) it hints at the power level of a type of caster. Most settings do not require a Cleric (or any Divine caster) to have a deity, and some do not even have deities, (per se).
In all honesty, I don't think that you could "blur" the line any more than 3E or PF have already done, as there really isn't one to blur. :)
Hi TOZ
I disagree that there isn't a good reason, but then I subscribe to the notion that "flavor" is a good reason.
Even from a purely mechanical standpoint, while Wizards casting Cleric spells would not be more than slightly problematic in terms of the power of the class, Clerics casting Wizard spells would obviate the need/use for Wizards, as has already been pointed out (unless you kept armor-based spell failure for spells that are on the Wizard list but not the Cleric list as it stands now, which seems even more arbitrary to me than having two types of magic). Again, if you don't see the total eclipse of one class by another class as a good reason to maintain the state of affairs that precludes it, then I've got nothin'.
Spells that can be cast by both are just very common manifestations of magic.
Check out this thread from a few weeks back.
As far as this subject goes, it seems to me that there's a very simple explanation for the overlapping identical spells between Arcane and Divine magic that isn't "that's common magic" - no offense, Cheapy, but that explanation rings false to me.
It seems to me to be much much more likely that, at some point in history, in the development of mortal magic (arcane magic), an arcanist saw or read about or otherwise learned of an effect that a divine caster produced with God-magic, and said "I ought to be able to do that!"
Probably less often, the divine spellcaster learns of an arcane effect and prays to his deity or meditates on the attitude of the universe or whatever, and essentially asks "Can I do that?" and if the spell is available to the supplicant, the answer is "yes" and if not, the answer is "no" - people are imitative, as well as inventive.
This rationale for spells that appear in both camps answers both the question of why there are such spells, and also why members of the opposite camp would have difficulty, as it is the magical effects that are duplicated, not the methods for triggering the magic.
--------------
Edit: This, by the way, is a nice and tidy explanation for the genesis of spells such as False Life (alchemist 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, witch 2) - Arcanists, probably wizards, trying to research healing magic. (Is it the only explanation? Of course not. Is it an explanation that makes sense and fits in with the observable system of magic? Yes.)
Flavor is a good reason. In fact, in game design, it's the driving reason. Otherwise there would be no classes, and everyone would be fighter/rogues with cure and color spray.
However, if there is a desire for spell lists to be different, they should be different. Totally different, not just kind of different. Each class should have it's own list of totally unique spells. Either that, or every class draws from a master list, and let the mechanics of the class provide the differences. But having arcane and divine casters both drawing from essentially the same spell list, with slight differences and arbitrary restrictions, just doesn't work flavor wise.
If cross-class spell research could explain the similarities in spell lists, then why are there any restrictions at all? Flavor is fine, but justification for its own sake is meaningless. The flavor and mechanics of the game should speak for themselves, not require justification.
The problem with that particular divide is that there are now enough different casting classes that it can be problematic. After all, clerics, druids, inquisitors, and oracles each have their own way of accessing their power, as do wizards, sorcerers, and summoners. Bards have always been a troublesome case to explain, as their spell list has shifted with every edition. The magus, despite being built on the bard chassis for everything else, deviated from it and was given arcane spells only. Witches represent a new class that blurs the lines considerably.
When there were 2 main casting classes and a couple of derivations that were directly based off of those classes, the distinction made sense. Now, with so many classes, each with it's own way of accessing magic, it seems like an unnecessary extra layer that causes problems when developing spell lists for new classes.
Flavor is a good reason. In fact, in game design, it's the driving reason. Otherwise there would be no classes, and everyone would be fighter/rogues with cure and color spray.
However, if there is a desire for spell lists to be different, they should be different. Totally different, not just kind of different. Each class should have it's own list of totally unique spells. Either that, or every class draws from a master list, and let the mechanics of the class provide the differences. But having arcane and divine casters both drawing from essentially the same spell list, with slight differences and arbitrary restrictions, just doesn't work flavor wise.
If cross-class spell research could explain the similarities in spell lists, then why are there any restrictions at all? Flavor is fine, but justification for its own sake is meaningless. The flavor and mechanics of the game should speak for themselves, not require justification.
Cross-class spell research explaining similarities in spell lists does not automatically extrapolate to a necessary absence of restrictions. The mechanics of the system are an abstraction that represents the functionality of magic in the game world for the purposes of playing the game. Perhaps the reason that certain spells can't be researched by Wizards has to do with the way that Wizards work magic. (The reason that certain spells remain unavailable to Clerics and divine casters in general is easy, flavor-wise: whoever or whatever they get their spells from doesn't feel like giving them those spells.) Perhaps it has to do with he methods that Wizards use to research spells. Perhaps it has to do with certain properties of the way the spells are cast. The reason is never explicitly given, but that does not mean that no such reason exists in the game world, nor does it imply that such a reason should not exist.
In the real world, there are a number of different ways to go about designing a website. One way, you manually specify the design for each page, and then string them all up in the arrangement you like. Another way is to pick an arrangement and general design and then fill in content where you want it. Both ways can be used to create identical websites. They got there by different methods.
Similarly, there are several ways in physics to deal with motion. Classical mechanics will describe the motion of a thrown football just fine, but it's not so good at dealing with the motion of subatomic particles (especially quarks). Quantum mechanics, however is capable of dealing with both, though it's much much harder to work with something as large as a football in Quantum mechanics. For a human unassisted by technology, I believe, the equations would get to be nigh impossible. But they both address the motion of molecules and individual atoms fairly well.
How is it wrong/bad/objectionable to have a system like this for magic? In my explanation, the overlapping spell effects that either group could manage are explained by copycat research in one direction or the other. As I've said, the explanation for the divine casters not having access to all of the spells that the arcane casters do is that their divine sources of power are unwilling or unable to grant that access. For the arcanists, they either haven't yet bothered to duplicate the tools available to the divine casters because they already have as good or better, or they lack the ability to unlock the secrets of the divine-only spells (such as the cure spells) on their own (much like classical physics can't properly deal with quarks).
As far as why discrete classes don't have discrete casting lists... Mechanically, if only Clerics could cast Cure Light Wounds, either you'd have to develop other mechanics to allow different classes to have spell-based healing by default (which would be time-consuming, page-space-consuming, and frustrating to keep track of), or only Clerics would be able to heal HP damage via spells, which would throw off a good deal of the other encounter-based mechanics already built into the game.
Additionally, the development of classes is by default an adjustment process that lends itself to re-using existing spellcasting capability as opposed to making something entirely new up. Suppose the only four classes were Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, and someone came along and said "I want to have the martial prowess of the Fighter, but I'd like to devote my life to a god and a faith like the Cleric, in the hopes that one day I too might be able to perform miracles." Enter the Paladin. Plenty of tradeoffs from a full cleric, plenty of tradeoffs from a regular fighter. New class, presto.
It's a matter of efficiency - much better to re-use portions of what you already have than to create everything for the new class from scratch.
Would having a single unified spell list be *more* efficient? Of course, but it would contradict the flavor that has already been established that some effects are almost or entirely impossible for one group of casters.
Note that I assume that the notion of the game world and the associated flavor came first (as was the case with D&D/PF), and that the mechanics were then created (and altered) to describe that world and make it easy to play in it. While valid, I find it bland and uninteresting to design efficient, robust mechanics first and find an appropriate flavor that fits my existing mechanics.
Divine is from the gods, Arcane from magic energy. Sounds right to me.
I'd even go farther and seperate "Natural Magic" or "Spirit Magic" or whatever from Divine Magic since there's a significant difference between Druids/Rangers and Clerics/Paladins
a AA that started as a Inquistor or Oracle?? a Wizard that could heal??
That sounds nice but in my opinion, that'd be class modifications, not arcane/divine bluring - as for the healing, Witches and Bards do that already.
So, my vote is for class mods - Arcane Rangers/Inquisitors, Divine Bards, Spirit Bards...
The problem with that particular divide is that there are now enough different casting classes that it can be problematic. After all, clerics, druids, inquisitors, and oracles each have their own way of accessing their power, as do wizards, sorcerers, and summoners. Bards have always been a troublesome case to explain, as their spell list has shifted with every edition. The magus, despite being built on the bard chassis for everything else, deviated from it and was given arcane spells only. Witches represent a new class that blurs the lines considerably.
When there were 2 main casting classes and a couple of derivations that were directly based off of those classes, the distinction made sense. Now, with so many classes, each with it's own way of accessing magic, it seems like an unnecessary extra layer that causes problems when developing spell lists for new classes.
Magus deviates from bard in a number of other ways as well, including the need to memorize spells from a spellbook and the notion of being a dedicated frontline combatant. (The Magus was built on the Cleric chassis as much as on the Bard chassis - both have 2 good saves and the same BAB progression (it's the same chassis). The Bard spell progression was used probably to represent the tradeoff of spell progression for martial progression that the Magus enjoys, same as for the Inquisitor relative to the Cleric.)
I admit that with the addition of more spellcasting classes, the spellcasting system got more complex. I fully expect that with the addition of more martial classes (from the impending release of Ultimate Combat, which I greatly look forward to), the combat system will get more complex.
For a short answer on what spells to give a new class, I would think that one would consider the thematic source for the class (Witches in Earth fables have been able to heal as well as hex) and the flavor description of the source of its magic, and compare those to the feel of existing spells across the board. If you were uncertain of the way that the class should tip in terms of Arcane/Divine caster, consider the number of each kind of spell you think is appropriate to build the class with access to, and designate it as that kind of class. <shrug>
Divine is from the gods, Arcane from magic energy. Sounds right to me.
I'd even go farther and seperate "Natural Magic" or "Spirit Magic" or whatever from Divine Magic since there's a significant difference between Druids/Rangers and Clerics/Paladins
Personally, I view the Druid/Cleric divide as a fundamental difference in faith/belief, and thus a subdivision of the divine source, much like the cleric of Pharasma gets magic powers from a slightly different source than the cleric of Nethys. The Durid is simply different on a bigger scale. Consider: the majority of Gods and churches are social institutions, right? Even the weird secretive cults are predominantly focused on interaction with Society at some level, right? So it makes sense that these Gods and churches/temples/cults/whatevers would focus less on natural magic and more on magic that interacts with people, so that's the kind of spell that their Clerics and Paladins are going to get.
Conversely, Druids and Rangers are associated with Nature, and are not particularly concerned with Humanoid Society. The forest is their temple, the waterfall their altar, the woodland creatures their congregation. It follows that their magic will be the magic of nature, for there is the heart of their faith.
No division is required here, just a recognition that faith-based magic can be expressed in any number of ways. The difference between Clerics/Paladins and Druids/Rangers is not in the quality or quantity of their faith, merely in the direction.
Divine is from the gods, Arcane from magic energy. Sounds right to me.
I'd even go farther and seperate "Natural Magic" or "Spirit Magic" or whatever from Divine Magic since there's a significant difference between Druids/Rangers and Clerics/Paladins
Me too.
I nevertheless find annoying that too many times spells are assigned without a reason to too many spell lists. UM has cleric blasting ice all around as a swift action and inquisitors spreading maggots.
Your examples are a bit flawed. The Dragonlance dieties of magic you mentioned had no clerics at all. And none of the mainline settings created by TSR/WOTC Greyhawk, The Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Spelljammer et. al. had any examples of godless clerics. The "No gods required" provision was only in the general rules and was placed there to please fundie critics of the game.
Eberron does have godless clerics. They do follow a faith, but not all of Eberrons faiths have a god. Page 34 of the Eberron Campaign Setting even mentions godless clerics.
Eberron does have godless clerics. They do follow a faith, but not all of Eberrons faiths have a god. Page 34 of the Eberron Campaign Setting even mentions godless clerics.Your examples are a bit flawed. The Dragonlance dieties of magic you mentioned had no clerics at all. And none of the mainline settings created by TSR/WOTC Greyhawk, The Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Spelljammer et. al. had any examples of godless clerics. The "No gods required" provision was only in the general rules and was placed there to please fundie critics of the game.
Yes, but Eberron is a post-modernist take on DnD. And thus it's designed to make you ask the OP's question.
Forgotten Realms also doesn't require a (living) god. Lost Empires of Faerun lets you be a cleric (with all the normal abilities) of a dead or forgotten god, as long as you have the Servant of the Fallen feat.
So while Forgotten Realms does requires you to have a god, that god could very well be dead and you can still get your powers.
Well, Golarion also has Prophecies of Kalistrade, Diabolism, Whispering Way and Green Faith, that need a god to be selected, but have their own rules.
The "No gods required" provision was only in the general rules and was placed there to please fundie critics of the game.
Really? I thought it was to appease players who didn't want to have to take instructions from any church or "god". Wanting the powers without the responsibilities, in other words.
Why?
In the very beginning, there were two spell lists, cleric and magic-user, and scrolls were for one class or the other, never both.
Then, in AD&D 1st, there were four lists—magic-user, illusionist, cleric, and druid—and all scrolls were one of the four, usable only by people with that spell list.
Then in AD&D 2nd, all "wizard" spells were consolidated into one group and all "priest" spells were consolidated on another, and every class had access to part of one of the consolidated groups. Now you could use a scroll if it was of the right overall type (wizard or priest), as long as it was also one of your permitted spells (any wizard for mages and bards; by school for wizard specialists; by sphere for cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, god-specific specialty priest, or the later crusader, monk, and mystic).
Third Edition returned to the class list approach to spells of AD&D 1st. This was simpler than having to look up each spell sphere to see if you had it or not, and allowed levels of spells to differ by class. At the same time, it retained the level of scroll cross-compatibility across classes that AD&D 2nd had, under the names "arcane" and "divine".
Why not consolidate scrolls rather than retain the arcane/divine split? Mostly because clerics and wizards have never been able to use each others' scrolls.
The "No gods required" provision was only in the general rules and was placed there to please fundie critics of the game.Really? I thought it was to appease players who didn't want to have to take instructions from any church or "god". Wanting the powers without the responsibilities, in other words.
What godless clerics are for is quick on the fly games where you don't have a Campaign setting of any Gods to pick from.
As well in 2E there were no Gods. In 3E they gave a sampling from Greyhawk and in PF a sampling from Glorian. In 2E you have to buy the books to get that info otherwise it was generic cleric for you.
The "No gods required" provision was only in the general rules and was placed there to please fundie critics of the game.Really? I thought it was to appease players who didn't want to have to take instructions from any church or "god". Wanting the powers without the responsibilities, in other words.What godless clerics are for is quick on the fly games where you don't have a Campaign setting of any Gods to pick from.
As well in 2E there were no Gods. In 3E they gave a sampling from Greyhawk and in PF a sampling from Glorian. In 2E you have to buy the books to get that info otherwise it was generic cleric for you.
I can see your first point, although as a player if my GM wasn't providing me with a god or gods to choose from, I'd just make one up. The cleric class doesn't make sense to me without gods.
I had forgotten that they took specific deities out of the core books in 2nd edition. I had assumed it was to keep them setting neutral. Forgotten Realms, which was the flagship setting for 2nd edition, certainly had no shortage of gods.
Why the two schools of magic?
I believe it originally goes back to the point where you had magic-users and clerics where the only (main) spellcasters, each with their own spell list.
As things went along, other spellcasting classes appeared, with spells 'more like this class and less like this other class' separating the philosophical approach to spellcasting in two camps; arcane and divine.
Personally, I don't think the distinction is necessary anymore as each class pretty much comes with its own spell list anyways (with several spells crossing the boundaries). The rest is mainly fluff.
Mechanically, it mostly prevents arcane casters to cast the divine version of the same spell and vice-versa.
That being said, I like the distinction of divine vs. arcane magic and all the fluff that goes around it, and I am willing to keep it for mostly sentimental reasons.
'findel
I had forgotten that they took specific deities out of the core books in 2nd edition.
Took them out? They were never in. The 1974 boxed set doesn't include any gods, or even mention the words "god" or "deity" once. No example deities were included in the 1st edition PHB/DMG/MM core. Nor were any deities included in the Basic Sets edited by Holmes, Moldvay, or Mentzer.
I had forgotten that they took specific deities out of the core books in 2nd edition.Took them out? They were never in. The 1974 boxed set doesn't include any gods, or even mention the words "god" or "deity" once. No example deities were included in the 1st edition PHB/DMG/MM core. Nor were any deities included in the Basic Sets edited by Holmes, Moldvay, or Mentzer.
Gods, Demigods and Heroes (supplement IV, 1976) for original D&D covered numerous pantheons / deities. AD&D 1E also handled it in the same manner, a seperate book. Anyway, the original divine split in OE was law / chaos. No specific deities. You inserted your own (I did), went medieval or glossed over it.
For those curious the original GD&H (1976) covered the following pantheons (I'm looking at my copy as I type -- names as they appeared): Egyptian Mythology, Gods of India, Greek Mythology, The Celtic Mythos, The Norse Gods, The Finnish Gods and Heroes, Robert E. Howard's Hyborea, Elric and the Melnibone Story Line, Mexican and Central American Indian Mythology, and Eastern Mythos. All in 68 pages.
It was more of a monster book than a religious supplement and it tended to assume the Cleric would fit all needs. It included a lot of monsters, and magical gear to go with the gods as well as cultural heroes.
|
Why?
In the very beginning, there were two spell lists, cleric and magic-user, and scrolls were for one class or the other, never both.
Then, in AD&D 1st, there were four lists—magic-user, illusionist, cleric, and druid—and all scrolls were one of the four, usable only by people with that spell list.
Then in AD&D 2nd, all "wizard" spells were consolidated into one group and all "priest" spells were consolidated on another, and every class had access to part of one of the consolidated groups. Now you could use a scroll if it was of the right overall type (wizard or priest), as long as it was also one of your permitted spells (any wizard for mages and bards; by school for wizard specialists; by sphere for cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, god-specific specialty priest, or the later crusader, monk, and mystic).
Third Edition returned to the class list approach to spells of AD&D 1st. This was simpler than having to look up each spell sphere to see if you had it or not, and allowed levels of spells to differ by class. At the same time, it retained the level of scroll cross-compatibility across classes that AD&D 2nd had, under the names "arcane" and "divine".
Why not consolidate scrolls rather than retain the arcane/divine split? Mostly because clerics and wizards have never been able to use each others' scrolls.
To add to the information the in 1st and 2nd cleric and druid lists only went up to level 7 and topped out at a level 7 power level while wizards and illusionists had spells up to 9th level. Cleric spells had a lot fewer boom spells than now and the ones they had were weak. They were really focused on buffs and healing. It was not uncommon for a cleric is 1st or 2nd edition to use almost all his slots on heal spells as the convert spells to heals came in with 3rd edition. If you can get your hands on a 1st edition players handbook and check out the spell lists (and the ways some spells could backfire) I think it would be illuminating to the origins of how things are today.
|
|
I had forgotten that they took specific deities out of the core books in 2nd edition.Took them out? They were never in. The 1974 boxed set doesn't include any gods, or even mention the words "god" or "deity" once. No example deities were included in the 1st edition PHB/DMG/MM core. Nor were any deities included in the Basic Sets edited by Holmes, Moldvay, or Mentzer.Gods, Demigods and Heroes (supplement IV, 1976) for original D&D covered numerous pantheons / deities. AD&D 1E also handled it in the same manner, a seperate book. Anyway, the original divine split in OE was law / chaos. No specific deities. You inserted your own (I did), went medieval or glossed over it.
For those curious the original GD&H (1976) covered the following pantheons (I'm looking at my copy as I type -- names as they appeared): Egyptian Mythology, Gods of India, Greek Mythology, The Celtic Mythos, The Norse Gods, The Finnish Gods and Heroes, Robert E. Howard's Hyborea, Elric and the Melnibone Story Line, Mexican and Central American Indian Mythology, and Eastern Mythos. All in 68 pages.
It was more of a monster book than a religious supplement and it tended to assume the Cleric would fit all needs. It included a lot of monsters, and magical gear to go with the gods as well as cultural heroes.
Didn't it have something with Gray Mouser and such? I recall they got sued over a couple of the copyrighted mythos they included.
Gods, Demigods and Heroes (supplement IV, 1976) for original D&D covered numerous pantheons / deities. AD&D 1E also handled it in the same manner, a seperate book.I had forgotten that they took specific deities out of the core books in 2nd edition.Took them out? They were never in. The 1974 boxed set doesn't include any gods, or even mention the words "god" or "deity" once. No example deities were included in the 1st edition PHB/DMG/MM core. Nor were any deities included in the Basic Sets edited by Holmes, Moldvay, or Mentzer.
Yes, and that's exactly how it was handled in 2nd edition, too, with the 2nd edition version of Legends and Lore. My point was you can define "core" to include the book-of-gods in OE, 1E, and 2E, or you can define it to exclude the book-of-gods in OE, 1E, and 2E—but either way, there's no way to claim 2E "they took specific deities out of the core books in 2nd edition", because 2E did things the exact same way as 1E.
this might turn into a history lesson, and if anyone has the old books im courius.
Why the two schools of magic? i know divine is from your chosen god, and arcane is thu study or nateral bloodline luck. this might blow some minds out here and maybe this might move to the homebrew collum, but would it break the game by bluring the line.
a AA that started as a Inquistor or Oracle?? a Wizard that could heal??
Clerics get medium armor, shields, can cast while wearing armor, more spells per day, two good saves as opposed to only one, 3/4 BAB, channel energy, d8 hit die, access to his entire spell list, and two domains powers. In any round that a wizard and a cleric of the same level casts the same spell, the cleric comes out on top.
The draw to playing a wizard/sorcerer is that he has access to spells that other classes do not and that are a cut above the rest. Give those spells to clerics and now you no longer have a reason for wizards or sorcerers to even exist.
More to the point is the question of balance. Think about a cleric who can buff himself, attack in melee with his full BAB, then get off a fireball the next round with no spell failure chance.
I'd love to play that character. In a campaign filled with venerable dragons who begin making appearances at about 6th level. Otherwise, the uberness would bore me after the first few minutes.
Didn't it have something with Gray Mouser and such? I recall they got sued over a couple of the copyrighted mythos they included.
That came in the 1E version iirc. They had legal problems with the Elric material in 1E I believe. They had to do another version of the book that left that out. I have both versions ratting around here (boxed up). I think they had a relationship with Leiber. A lot of his material cropped up in Dragon (short stories etc.). I'll probably end up digging out my 1E and 2E books and getting nostalgic...
Yes, and that's exactly how it was handled in 2nd edition, too, with the 2nd edition version of Legends and Lore. My point was you can define "core" to include the book-of-gods in OE, 1E, and 2E, or you can define it to exclude the book-of-gods in OE, 1E, and 2E—but either way, there's no way to claim 2E "they took specific deities out of the core books in 2nd edition", because 2E did things the exact same way as 1E.
Pretty much. A lot of material for Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms deities showed up in seperate books too. There was actually more variation about Clerics in that material as I recall. Late 1E / 2E was when information about religion (as opposed to the gods as boss monster types) showed up in quantity. Unless you played EPT (loved that game) which had full write ups on Tekumel's religions and deities (no stats -- any mortal was an ant to them). M.A.R. Barker had religions in his setting.
Not true. Clerics of dead gods either have no powers such as the case of Gilgeam, or are getting them from another diety who's minding the store as someone did for Waukeen when she was absent or subverting their followers as Cyric did when he murdered Lllira.
So while Forgotten Realms does requires you to have a god, that god could very well be dead and you can still get your powers.
In most cases, what you say is true. But not all cases.
Read the rest of my post that you quoted from. It requires the cleric to take a feat to get his powers from a dead god, but it is still possible. The power comes from his faith in the god, not another god. Sometimes, the cleric gets his powers from a near-divinity instead. (A near-divinity is, by definition, not a god. Yet the cleric can still get powers from it.) Check Lost Empires of Faerun for the Servant of the Fallen feat. And later on in the book when it is talking about dead deities, it specifically says that the Servent of the Fallen feat represents a special bond you have with a dead god that lets you draw your power from the dead god.