That's kind of the opposite of what I am suggesting.Kobold Press had a Priest class for their Midgard setting that was essentially the divine equivalent of the Wizard.
That's kind of the opposite of what I am suggesting.Kobold Press had a Priest class for their Midgard setting that was essentially the divine equivalent of the Wizard.
Maybe not right at the start at a later point in the campaign it would be in my game, because odds are high one of the PCs would set it on fire within minutes.One time, when I started an adventure with the words, "The party is sitting in a tavern...", one of the players who knew me well immediately asked, "Is it on fire?"
Or you can go the other direction, and get rid of the "mage" classes: magical power doesn't just come from nowhere, and it doesn't come free. Goes against my stated interest in Charles Atlas Superpowers but it feels more authentic than atheist-rationalist wizards.Really, the right solution is to just eliminate "priest" classes. You can create a healbot/buffer magical type without having to invoke religions.
In the Urban Fantasy Allison Beckstrom series by Devon Monk, magic use does comes with a cost. If a spellcaster in that setting were to cast a spell without setting Disbursement first, they would suffer a short-lived but random aliment like a really bad head cold or sore muscles. Now if they were to set a Disbursement up first, then they could decide what cost they were willing to pay. It would be like someone deciding what Disadvantage they wanted to have ahead of time. "I am going to have my next skill check or my next saving throw at disadvantage."Or you can go the other direction, and get rid of the "mage" classes: magical power doesn't just come from nowhere, and it doesn't come free. Goes against my stated interest in Charles Atlas Superpowers but it feels more authentic than atheist-rationalist wizards.
I absolutely think D&D magic needs some uncertainty and danger, but that is a completely different question than whether the game needs "divine magic."Or you can go the other direction, and get rid of the "mage" classes: magical power doesn't just come from nowhere, and it doesn't come free. Goes against my stated interest in Charles Atlas Superpowers but it feels more authentic than atheist-rationalist wizards.
I absolutely think D&D magic needs some uncertainty and danger, but that is a completely different question than whether the game needs "divine magic."
so you're saying delete the wizard, it's the sorcerer and warlock is where's it's at? yeah i can definitely get behind that!the point though is that if you want to emulate pre-dnd fiction and myth then ALL magic comes from external sources - most of them divine.
The idea of a academic mage with internal power to control magic via formula-sans spiritus, is a modern dnd cliche
Gandalf is Maia (an angel?), Merlin was half-demon, the Scorcerers of Conans Hypoborea were worshippers of Set, others got power from pacts with Fey or Familiar spirits etc etc. of course it really suggest that Warlock should be the only magic class with cleric as celestial-pact
Which is perfect if you want a more modern D&D setting. As technology progressed alongside science, so did a brand new form of magic. A magic which didn't rely on Nature spirits (Primal Magic) or the Gods (Divine Magic), but on men and women using science-driven magic.The idea of a academic mage with internal power to control magic via formula-sans spiritus, is a modern dnd cliche