Why are divine spells so much better than arcane spells?

[Bladerock]

Can someone explain why is it that D&D and Pathfinder, by extension, feel the need to make divine casting so much better than arcane casting?

You could argue that arcane casters had a monopoly over the spell-like ability style of casting pioneered by the bard and sorcerer, but this is no longer the case, since the sorcerer's style of casting has divine caster counterparts.

Some people have insisted to me that the additional power of arcane spells means that the class that casts them needs to be weaker. But i really don't see this amazing extra power that requires a smaller hit die, lower base attack bonus, less weapon and armor proficiencies and a limited spell list to choose from while in play. Oh, and arcane spell failure chance (which, like, half of the available arcane casters do away with through class abilities anyway.)

It just seems like a LOT of gimping over a minuscule power difference.

[Cheapy]

Because arcane spells are generally better than divine spells, and can have greater effect.

[ShadowcatX]

The difference in power from arcane spells and divine spells is anything but miniscule. It is huge.

Compare haste as a damage over time effect vs. any buff spell of 3rd level a divine caster can put out. Haste wins. Always and every time. There's not even a contest.

Or for crowd control, look at color spray and sleep vs. things like command.

Furthermore: the differences you mention don't matter as much as you might think, as long as you have hp > 1, you've got plenty of hp if you make sure you don't get hit, which arcane casters (with crowd control and things like over land flight) are better at than divine casters. And if you're casting spells you don't need a high base attack bonus, or weapon proficiencies.

[Quatar]

Because divine casters are a completely different class, and not just "wizards that pray for spells instead of reading a book"

Why do fighters get heavy armor proficiency and armor training, negating all the penalties of heavy armor, and barbarians get gimped by only wearing medium? Because they're not the same thing.

[Anthony Kane]

I think you have it backwards. Divine Spell casters are NOT as amazingly better than arcane casters as you may think. There are several reasons for this. Here's my explanation.

First you have to go WAY back before 3.5 to almost the games origins. Like back to Advanced D&D (1st or 2nd edition). You know, back in the days of level caps for non-humans, when people rolled 3D6 straight for ability scores, when each class had its own separate level progression XP table, and when having an Armor class of Zero was amazing because you didn't have BAB you had THAC-0.

Back in this fantasy time warp the spell casting tables were different for both Divine and arcane magic. Divine Magic worked on a spell casting table of level 1 thru 7, where Arcane Magic worked on a scale of level 1 thru 9. 7th level divine spells were similar in power to 9th level arcane spells. Confused yet?

The D&D 3.0 came along and they revised the power scale. At the time game designers felt it made more sense for the two primary casters in the game (clerics and wizards) to have the same spell level scale (1st thru 9th).

Now you also have to remember that back then WoTC actually gave a damn about its old school player base, so much so that they actually gave out a nifty conversion manual so that you could "update" your AD&D 2nd edition character to 3.0. This also meant that a lot of the "classic spells" where also re-stated to 3.0 mechanics. The reason why this is important is that if you felt things with magic were broken back in 2nd edition, all 3.0 did was provide a bridge for much of that to carry over (without much play testing) into 3.0.

So in short, the first problem you have is 2 different magic power level scales for 2 different classes getting translated thru conversion into a "standardized" format for the 3rd edition of the game.

Second. The cleric's magic was always designed to be much less versatile than the wizards. This was done primarily because the cleric had other options that the wizard didn't. The cleric from AD&D and the 3rd edition era had Heavy Armor Proficiency, they had a better THAC-0 or BAB, they got a bigger Hit Die, ect. Thus the only way to keep the Cleric in check in terms of game balance was to really limit the scope of what his spells could do.

I also believe that back in 2nd edition Clerics had to pray for there spells and while this term remains part of the PF vernacular to this day its meaning has changed over time. Today, that phrase is just another way of saying that a cleric is a "prepared" spell caster. It still mean this back in earlier editions but I believe (and I might be wrong about this) the DM/GM had the option of assigning the cleric what spells he got for the day. You could make a request by praying for specific spells but your deity (aka the DM/GM) had the option of overriding you request and assigning you spells that they felt you needed for that day. This little caveat was lost in the translation from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, and thus the cleric got to be a lot more flexible than he use to be.

The wizard didn't have that problem. No praying to a higher power for what he wanted to cast. He just studied what he wanted and got what he wanted for his spells.

Third I think it also has a lot to do with the player and how they interact with the group. Playing a spell caster is hard to do right but I think the cleric player has it easier than the wizard player. The cleric has a lot of options. He can fight competently in melee. He can damage undead. He can spontaneously heal. He also has a wide array of domain powers. These options make it seem as if the Cleric is better than the wizard but that is false. It just means the cleric looks easier to play because he has more options. So what if he didn't memorize enough healing magic. Channel energy and the ability to spontaneously heal make up for that. If he didn't prepare the right spells, who cares, he can still fight on the front line for a little bit.

The wizard doesn't have this luxury. (and notice how I didn't say arcane casters in general because the Sorcerer has it easy compared to the wizard). If you didn't memorize the right spells you my friend are USELESS. If you prepared a bunch of damage spells that day and your group is dealing with social encounters guess who isn't contributing. If you prepared a bunch of divination spells for recon and today is the day the DM/GM has planned for an 8 hour battle royale, guess who's not doing squat.

I've seen it happen enough times. Players want to be a wizard because the watch someone with experience play the all powerful god and master of the universe at the table. Then they try to do it and wined up as the most useless member of the party because they don't have the right experience to know what spells they'll need for that day.

The wizard has the most extensive set of spells with options in the game, period. Its like having an entire tool department at you disposal. But unless you know what you'll need, when you need it, and how much you'll need, all those tools could be useless.

With the wizard its all about preparation. And a player that can't prepare the right spells for that day or set of encounters can make the wizard and his entire spell list look bad. I'm not saying you're doing this. I'm just siting examples of what I've seen over the years.

Finally we have the Sorcerer. Remember how I removed him from the above conversation, well here's the reason for that. The Sorcerer player as an arcane caster has it much easier because even though they have a very limited spell selection, as long as you know the right spells, you always have options.

Remember while the wizard can know every spell in the game he still has to prepare the right spells for that day.

The sorcerer only knows a few of the spells out of all of them, but he can cast any of the spells he knows, at any time, as long as he hasn't used up all his spell casting slots for that day. A spontaneous caster has that one advantage over a prepared caster. They can adapt to the situation, as long as they know the right spell. The prepared caster may know the right spell, but if they didn't prepare it, and they don't have a way to swap it out on the spot, then its as good as not being there when they need it.

I know this was a long explanation. I hope it helps clear up your question.

[Quori]

When I read the title I laughed a lot.

Yeah, what everyone else said.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

The cleric/oracle is much better at surviving than the wizard/sorcerer especially at low level because of the armor and hit points.

However, their spells are just not nearly as powerful or diverse.

The arcane has alot of very good spells that affect lots of opponents.
The divine have a few but they generally aren't as good at it and tend to be at least a level higher for similar effects.

Arcane can learn teleport, illusions, fireball, prismatic sphere, etc...
Yes, a divine with proper domain/mystery selection can get some of the spells, but not all of them.

However, 'they' have also been increasing the power/effectiveness of the divine spell casters ever since 1st edition DnD. I think mostly because no one wanted to play them rather than for power balance issues. I do not think it was power balance because with all of the optional stuff that would come out during various editions the divine caster arguably became more powerful than the arcane caster and still no one wanted to play them.
It was "We must have a healer, so who is stuck with it this time." So they have upped the power of divine casters and also modified the rules so they aren't as manditory as they used to be.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

Anthony Kane wrote:

... I've seen it happen enough times. Players want to be a wizard because the watch someone with experience play the all powerful god and master of the universe at the table. Then they try to do it and wined up as the most useless member of the party because they don't have the right experience to know what spells they'll need for that day...

It isn't always a matter of experience or knowledge of the game. With some GM's, groups, or campaigns it is almost impossible to know what spells will be useful for the day. Then the wizard is always memorizing the same 'default' selection of generally useful spells. he ends up being a poor sorc.

[Anthony Kane]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

Anthony Kane wrote:

... I've seen it happen enough times. Players want to be a wizard because the watch someone with experience play the all powerful god and master of the universe at the table. Then they try to do it and wined up as the most useless member of the party because they don't have the right experience to know what spells they'll need for that day...

It isn't always a matter of experience or knowledge of the game. With some GM's, groups, or campaigns it is almost impossible to know what spells will be useful for the day. Then the wizard is always memorizing the same 'default' selection of generally useful spells. he ends up being a poor sorc.

Like I said, that was from experiences I've had over the years. Still even with a generic "default" spell memorization list (which I do strongly recommend that any wizard player come up with) its all a matter of what spells you put onto that default list, and that comes with time and experience.

A lot if the experience will come from getting a general feeling for GMs style of playing, how your group works, or how the campaign works in general. Once you get that felt out the default list of spells should at least be effective. It may not make you amazing, and sure you'll have days when its not quite as effective as it was the day before. A good default spell list will make a wizard useful in most situations, but like any PC, there are going to be times when you just aren't able to contribute anything, and that's just part of the game known as teamwork.

And if you can't figure out the feel of a GM, a group or a campaign then maybe a wizard isn't a good idea. Maybe its best to stick with a sorcerer at that point. But that has nothing to do with the usefulness of arcane magic. Arcane magic has proven is versatility time and time again. At that point its about what class can most often effectively use that arcane tool box, and that's a completely different discussion for another thread.

[Gauss]

Just a note on the wizard: its amazing how often people forget that the wizard can leave some spell slots open and memorize them later. It isn't an ideal solution but it does help. With the reduction in memorization time provided by Fast Study (in Ultimate Magic for the price of a feat) it is even more useful.

- Gauss

[Black_Lantern]

Arcane is better man.

[Interzone]

Yeah, I gotta agree with pretty much everyone here. There is a huuuge difference between arcane and divine.
One example I like to use:

Divine get Flame Strike: 10ft radius, medium range, d6 dmg/lvl, 5th level spell....

Arcane get Fireball: 20ft radius, long range, d6 dmg/lvl, 3rd level spell....

So way more area, range about 4 times longer, as a spell two levels lower.
Obviously there are other factors, like flame strikes higher dmg cap and semi-irressitable damage, but it is still a good example.
Arcane can do more powerful things.
That said, they do give up a lot, but I think it evens out quite nicely and the two different caster types are very well balanced against each other.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

Gauss wrote:

Just a note on the wizard: its amazing how often people forget that the wizard can leave some spell slots open and memorize them later. It isn't an ideal solution but it does help. With the reduction in memorization time provided by Fast Study (in Ultimate Magic for the price of a feat) it is even more useful...

I do sometimes forget that. Our group just recently started using UM.

But our GM also tends to not give you much undisturbed time to study. Even when he does, some of the group get impatient waiting on the prepard caster to prepare. Plus our adventuring 'day' tends to be very long with lots of encounters. At 7th level my wizard ends most days without any spells left (unless he prepared some odd ones that turned out to not be useful). For our group, GM, and campaign I have found it much less of a headache as well as more effective to be a spontaneous caster.

But I agree in many groups it is the other way around.

[La'Vantis Tuen]

i certainly hope no clerics heard this conversation before your wizard's cold dead corpse gets dropped in front of their door step...

he might not feel so inclined to help out the 'all powerful god caster'. He just might dig a whole and dump you in it.

The tombstone would say,

Here lies the all powerful wizard.
Dead.
Should have made a few cleric friends.

[LazarX]

Bladerock wrote:

Can someone explain why is it that D&D and Pathfinder, by extension, feel the need to make divine casting so much better than arcane casting?

Under what metric do you measure divine casting as being BETTER than arcane?

[K177Y C47]

1 word.... Simulacrum. Beat that divine casters....

[Kimera757]

Someone necro'd this thread!

Bladerock wrote:

Can someone explain why is it that D&D and Pathfinder, by extension, feel the need to make divine casting so much better than arcane casting?

You could argue that arcane casters had a monopoly over the spell-like ability style of casting pioneered by the bard and sorcerer, but this is no longer the case, since the sorcerer's style of casting has divine caster counterparts.

Some people have insisted to me that the additional power of arcane spells means that the class that casts them needs to be weaker. But i really don't see this amazing extra power that requires a smaller hit die, lower base attack bonus, less weapon and armor proficiencies and a limited spell list to choose from while in play. Oh, and arcane spell failure chance (which, like, half of the available arcane casters do away with through class abilities anyway.)

It just seems like a LOT of gimping over a minuscule power difference.

Clerics are more powerful as a bribe. Few people like to spend a standard action (and probably a move action) healing someone for a little bit of damage right after they dropped.

[Marius Castille]

Just up the road is a thread asking why wizards don't get healing spells. Coincidence? Yeah, probably. ; )