Cleric = Druid = Wizard

[howandwhy99]

White Mages....
Green Mages...
Gray Mages...

SNIP

What do you think...is this streamlined and elegant? Or does it take the "streamlining" a bit too far?

It sounds like Gary Gygax's 2e AD&D (a.k.a. Dangerous Journeys). He called it Dweomercræft schools (& Magick for the casting part I guess).
Black
White
Gray
Green
Elemental

Of course he had Priestcræft too, so...

I like different spellcasting for different schools of spellcasters. It gives the game flavor and uniqueness.

 

[Nivenus]

This seems more like an optional rule to me than anything else. Too many players (myself included) are fond of the division between arcane and divine magic and I think the druidic/primal magic has a similar degree of support at this point, as well as a distinctive enough feel (in most D&D settings, at least) to justify it's separation as well.

However, I think it could work well as an optional rule, similar to 3e's "warrior," "expert," and "adept" NPC classes. I just don't think it would work well as a core/basic version of the game, even if it is, in theory, more simple.

 

[miscreationist]

There are a lot of threads about core classes and spellcasting in the new edition...I had an idea that I would like to kick around.

Imagine a single core character class called "Mage" or some such. It has a realtively low propensity for combat, but can wield magic like nobody's business...when the character is created, the player chooses which spellbook (or power source, etc.) she would like to use.

White Mages use the cleric spell list (or the Divine power source, etc.)

Green Mages use the druid spell list (or the Natural power source).

Gray Mages use the wizard spell list (or the Arcane power source).

Other aspects of the individual classes would be handled through skill trees, or feats, or other modular abilities that the player earns and selects. Want to turn the undead, smite the wicked, or transform into a dire bear? Meet the requirements and then add it.

What do you think...is this streamlined and elegant? Or does it take the "streamlining" a bit too far?

I currently do something similar in my game. It is based on the Generic Classes (and other rules) from Unearthed Arcana (2004). I use arcane and divine paths for the mage class and you can take class features as you see to customize the divine path to fit a druid or cleric as you prefer. The arcane path can be customized to fit several different arcane caster archetypes. I've also had some games set up to use just arcane type and use White/Grey/Black Magic and a more swords and sorcery feel. Class abilities are handled through class specific feat trees as has been discussed recently.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think my issue with it is this is I want clerics in my game as representatives of the church. I want them to act different then wizards. I want them to have some different mechanics I don't like the idea of them being just a different type of spell caster.

I think we all agree with you. I wasn't asking about the flavor of the classes, but about the mechanics of the game. After all, the rules do not require clerics to represent a church, and it is up to the player, not the rules, to decide how a cleric acts.

But they are "just different types of spellcasters" already. From the storytelling perspective, clerics, druids, and wizards are different in just about every way. But from the game mechanics point of view, they aren't very different at all: all of them have high magic ability but rather low combat skill, all of them are somewhat physically fragile but mentally strong, all of them have the ability to use magical scrolls and wands but not very many weapons and armor, etc. The differences between the class are all words, not math.

I'm not saying that they should all use the same spell lists, or that they should all have the same abilities, or that they should use the same flavor elements (clerics use holy symbols and wizards use wands, wizards go to school but clerics go to church, druids draw power from the earth and clerics from the gods, etc.) That's story, not mechanics. I was wondering what it would look like if they all used the same math in the new edition, that's all.

 

[Nivenus]

But they are "just different types of spellcasters" already. From the storytelling perspective, clerics, druids, and wizards are different in just about every way. But from the game mechanics point of view, they aren't very different at all: all of them have high magic ability but rather low combat skill, all of them are somewhat physically fragile but mentally strong, all of them have the ability to use magical scrolls and wands but not very many weapons and armor, etc. The differences between the class are all words, not math.

That's really not true. Wizards in most editions have been incapable of waring any armor or wielding anything but a dagger, while clerics have traditionally worn light to medium armor and carry around hammers or maces. Druids, for their part, often carry simple weapons or wear hide armor.

I'm not saying that they should all use the same spell lists, or that they should all have the same abilities, or that they should use the same flavor elements (clerics use holy symbols and wizards use wands, wizards go to school but clerics go to church, druids draw power from the earth and clerics from the gods, etc.) That's story, not mechanics. I was wondering if they could all use the same math in the new edition, that's all.

That depends on the edition, methinks. 4e power sources (which, admittedly, is the first time they used the term) were all quite similar in function, but divine magic and arcane magic did have distinct rules during 3e.

 

[CleverNickName]

That's really not true. Wizards in most editions have been incapable of waring any armor or wielding anything but a dagger, while clerics have traditionally worn light to medium armor and carry around hammers or maces. Druids, for their part, often carry simple weapons or wear hide armor.

I think we are saying the same things, but in different ways. Back in BECM days, for example, clerics could wear any kind of armor but couldn't use sharp weapons...druids couldn't use weapons that were sharp OR made of metal...magic-users could use daggers and staffs and nothing else. So it is true, then, that they all had some kind of restriction on their combat gear.

I go back and forth on it, honestly. On one hand, it would be nice to have all of the spellcasters using the same math, but I

 

[mmadsen]

Imagine a single core character class called "Mage" or some such.

Hmm... maybe magic-user.

It has a realtively low propensity for combat, but can wield magic like nobody's business...when the character is created, the player chooses which spellbook (or power source, etc.) she would like to use.

White Mages use the cleric spell list (or the Divine power source, etc.)

Green Mages use the druid spell list (or the Natural power source).

Gray Mages use the wizard spell list (or the Arcane power source).

Other aspects of the individual classes would be handled through skill trees, or feats, or other modular abilities that the player earns and selects. Want to turn the undead, smite the wicked, or transform into a dire bear? Meet the requirements and then add it.

It seems perfectly natural to me -- partly because D&D's magic-user, cleric, and druid classes have always had peculiar mechanic differences and have lacked the kinds of differences that might make sense (to me).

After all, the defining traits of clerics used to be that they (1) used blunt weapons, (2) wore any armor, and (3) cast healing magic; druids (1) couldn't wear metal armor, (2) used weird weapons, and (3) had nature spells; while magic-users (1) couldn't wear any armor, (2) used staves and darts, and (3) had every spell except healing.