Removing Divine magic?

[DarrenGMiller]

I ran a Midnight game (no clerics except the evil NPC types and restricted arcane casting too). I also ran a psuedo-Celtic game with only Adepts and Druids (the Druids were more Celtic-variety and the Adepts were sort of Romanized priests from the non-Celtic part of the world) and no Clerics. This game also had no Wizards, only Sorcerers and those had to have fey-blood. Both games were fine without them. I still prefer keeping them in there most of the time.

DM

 

[zenld]

i second midnight. not only are all divine casters evil (only one god left and he aint so nice) but all other casters work from a unified spell list. check it out.

zen

 

[der_kluge]

not removed but severly limited. Cleric and Druids could only cast from domains they knew. Paladins and Rangers had their spells remoived. It worked out much better

Better for who? I'm not sure I'd want to play a cleric who could only cast spells from their domain. Did you compensate for the loss somehow?

 

[JVisgaitis]

not removed but severly limited. Cleric and Druids could only cast from domains they knew. Paladins and Rangers had their spells remoived. It worked out much better

So what type of alternative abilities did you give the Paladin and Ranger to make up for the loss?

 

[Storyteller01]

Didn't so much remove divine magic as start an Inquisition against it. The political powers that be don't get along with the gods, and fight to keep them out. Having the drow work as the campaign's equivalent of the SS really helps make this more believable. The two divine casters we have (Urban Druid and a worshipper of the Trickster) have come up with some amazing stories to hide their abilities... that and everyone keeps failing their Spellcraft checks. :\


It's work out surprisingly well. Bards have taken the role as support characters (I use an OGL source with some houseruling, so bards can do MUCH more than the usual singing in combat). Divine characters (even the paladins!!) have become something of a symbol of intrigue. If the players spot a divine caster, they know something big is on the way.

 

[der_kluge]

Yea, I was thinking that by removing formal clerics, you could provide some rudimentary healing spells to bards, call them something less fruity, and replace the musical ability for more skill points, and maybe some other abilities, and they'd make a great asset to the group as sort of a knowledge-bearer, and historian, and rudimentary healer. Like a medieval barber, except more successful.

 

[Crothian]

Better for who? I'm not sure I'd want to play a cleric who could only cast spells from their domain. Did you compensate for the loss somehow?

More domains and more domaion powers as they gain levels.

 

[Crothian]

So what type of alternative abilities did you give the Paladin and Ranger to make up for the loss?

Rangers got more skill points (this was back in 3.0) and got some good wilderness oriented abilities. Paladins gained abilites based on which god they worshiped.

 

[Ibram]

I long ago told my players that there was no arcane/divine magic IMC, just straight up magic (called Sorcery). Mystics (wis based caster similar to a cleric) learn their spells just like a wizard, they are not given "by the gods".

As I reworked the spell organization spells used by "good" casters fell under the sphere of Light Magic, while evil spells fell under the sphere of Dark magic. Anyone can learn spells from these spheres (so a wizard can learn cure spells and a mystic can learn fire magics). Its all a matter of flavor not rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, in a world with clerical magic, there is no mystery. Of course there are gods, I have my spells, don't I! It makes playing a nonbeliever pretty difficult, when you've got high level clerics walking around performing miracles (raising the dead, creating water out of thin air). That's pretty compelling.

This is incorrect. One can get clerical magic without gods. One also cannot know the gods via clerical magic. I've got a monothesitic campaign setting where one of the main themes is the unknowable of the ultimate devine -- and I don't curtail the use of magic in the slightest. Within the current rules, it's quite possible to have nine different faiths each espousing The Truth and be completely unable to prove any of them wrong.

As I reworked the spell organization spells used by "good" casters fell under the sphere of Light Magic, while evil spells fell under the sphere of Dark magic. Anyone can learn spells from these spheres (so a wizard can learn cure spells and a mystic can learn fire magics). Its all a matter of flavor not rules.

This works, but it takes a bit of restructuring to do and be fair. You can't just open up the magic system as it is now -- why be a wizard when you can be a cleric with fireball, d8 hp, a good BAB, and armor? You could force everyone to be a wizard, but I'd think you wouldn't see much use of buffs or divinations. People would focus on explosive spells (assuming combat as the main campaign activity) and have a handful of cures for when they're needed. By the rules now, the reason that clerics don't get the largest boom spells is because they have other features that make them talented in combat, and can add (mostly) defensive magic. This adds strategy and versaltility to combat.

The cleric fills a role that goes far beyond a Hit Point Despenser.

As for representing a versatile spellcaster, I agree, the Bard is the absolute best. Take away the name "Bard," change up a few skills, alter the flavor text of the music to be something else, maybe mess with the spell list a *little* bit, and you've got an incredibly good supportive spellcaster.