D&D 5E Why are we still stuck with divine casters knowing all spells?

Ratskinner

Adventurer
That would not be be a problem. If you're going to have the two classes seperate, then the cleric needs something to distinguish it from the wizard. Exclusive access to healing magic is one way. Another way would be to make the cleric a class which is a balanced hybrid between fighter and wizard.
Emphasis added.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Although I dare you tell cleric-lovers that they should be playing a multi-classed character.:)

The real problem here is this sacred cow thing. Only...the sacred cow (The Holy Quartet of Fighter/MU/Cleric/Thief) is based on the Old-School "healbot caster" who is limited in both diversity and power of spell as well as combat efficacy. The (particularly 3e) cleric is a dual-classed character masquerading as a single classed character...the dreaded CoDzilla. The cleric has become the gish.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
I think a larger problem is the set-in-concrete idea that divine magic is the principal source of healing. I've never bought into the convention that divine magic is the source of healing. Why? It makes sense if you worship a god of war, life, fertility or some similar domain, but what about the god of knowledge or trickery? One of the (relatively few) things I really like about 4e is that there are a fine assortment of non-divine sources of healing. It's a step in the right direction.

For me, that's a step in the wrong direction - toward flavorlessness that's antithetical to D&D's identity. Looking back at the cleric/magic user divide in 1e, the cleric's list of spells is fairly biblical in inspiration. Flames striking from the heavens, plagues of insects, and several varieties of faith healing are all nestled in there and make the class quite distinct from the wacko whose knowledge of the magical laws of the universe allow him to manipulate magic to his desired effect. There's been too much drift over the years, including over 3e's life, between the two and I think D&D would be better served to keep the two types of magic separate, maybe even heightened their distinction a bit more.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Sadly your probably right. But maybe one of these editions we can see that crappy cow turned into some yummy magic user steaks.

I don't agree that its a crappy cow.


I have played in several "lump everything together" campaigns where there was no arcane/divine separation. Had lots of fun.

But I think core should keep the divide and individual game groups can then tinker with it. Its not hard. [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] has a neat idea.

My campaign? Magic is magic. So a dispel magic works from a wizard to dispel a cleric's power and vice versa. But I like the arcane/divine separation. Wizards gain the power to cast spells through "hermetic" or "scientific" application of principles. Clerics gain the power via the divine spark within them.

So as mentioned upthread, my divine casters are actually spontaneous casters (core book only).

Why don't wizards have healing spells in my campaign? Havne't figured that out yet. (its been 30 years?, :D )


I'm theorizing its got something to do with life and belief. Deities manipulate soul energy into magic (read The Primal Order) so that lends itself to healing. Wizards are forcing the cosmos to bend by applying physics and theorems to it, which might not be as conducive to healing. The best they've done so far is necromantic transfer energy from one to another spells. Thats easier for some reason. (MUHAHAHA!)

Well that's the story of my world. Could wizards heal and the divide disappear? Theoretically.
 

timASW

Banned
Banned
I don't agree that its a crappy cow.


I have played in several "lump everything together" campaigns where there was no arcane/divine separation. Had lots of fun.

But I think core should keep the divide and individual game groups can then tinker with it. Its not hard. [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] has a neat idea.

The problem is that really isnt much of a divide. It boils down to a handful of Illusions and moderately more direct damage spells on the arcane side and healing and ability buffing spells on the divine side. But if you take polymorph spells into account arcane casters can do some pretty intense buffing as well.

So its really just how many direct damage spells per level, cure spells and whether you can wear armor or not dividing the two at this point. To me thats not nearly enough to justify two distinct classes.
 

dark2112

First Post
If you don't have anyone on hand to pick a lock, you pass by the door, maybe beat it down, maybe cast a spell like knock, maybe beat up some guards and take their keys. There's more than one way to get through a locked door.

If you don't have anyone on hand to remove your curse...historically, in D&D, that has meant that you're just cursed and it sucks to be you. But if there's multiple ways to deal with curses -- kill the critter that gave it to you? Make a few saving throws? Fullfill some requirement of it?

I rather like the idea of some sort of rules-supported alternative to remove curse that can be implemented, and was always a bit disappointed with the various versions of DnD I played that never spelled out some sort of alternative that could be used. What ever happened to the time honored Quest to find the rare herb/mystic dingus/heroic task that would break the curse? Although it was fun as a DM and/or player to be creative to find workarounds, it really shouldn't have always been needed. I don't really pull many punches in the games I run, because I know my group is pretty creative and can usually figure out some sort of bypass, but the one time this was tested pretty harshly was when I decided to run them through Heart of Nightfang Spire. Without a cleric. Two weeks' travel from the nearest town. It took them months of real time before they were able to come up with the party funds to invest in crafting a rod of negative energy protection or some such so they could actually make any progress through all the energy draining creatures. I probably should have given them a dingus much earlier, but I really got to like the "To the North lies a place called Nightfang Spire" jokes that started.

As to why they had no cleric? None of the experienced players were interested in a cleric for this particular game, and after some pretty disastrous attempts to let new players play what they liked in 3.x, I started recommending that new players specifically avoid clerics and druids. When you have to remind someone that you add skill ranks and your stat modifier to your skill roll more than half the time, letting them fiddle with such a large pool of spells can literally take hours away from the group, and even more experienced players can sometimes fall victim to the glut of spells available, especially once splat books are taken into account. It's the same reason people take forever ordering dinner at fast food restaurants. Even when McDonald's is running a lot of promotional menu items, it's not like the guy who always gets a Big Mac is going to suddenly decide he wants some strange fajita wrap of some kind, but he's going to spend three minutes staring at the menu before he orders his Big Mac because all the choices paralyzed him. As much as people talk about having more options is great, studies have proven that the more choices we have, the longer it takes to make a decision, and when everything is new, having 40ish spells to pick through every game day can be daunting. In theory, a daily spell list doesn't change much. In my experience, new players who pick a list tend to change it often, dropping spells they didn't use for new ones they might.

I remember spheres from back in the 2e days, and I did enjoy them to a certain extent. One of my favorite characters was a dwarven Sunite priest with a 5 intelligence and gold-etched full plate. The down side to spheres, at least as some people here are proposing them, is the fundamental exclusion of any new materials. That's great if you only ever want to run a core-only game. Unfortunately, if spheres are some sort of never changing beast, and new spells are only added via new spheres, unless there's some sort of method to gain access to more spheres in the future, existing characters can never have those new spells. Even if DM's rule that new spells can be added to those existing spheres, it takes a lot of bookkeeping to check each supplement as it comes out, label each spell you wish to include with a sphere, and provide a list for your players of what new spells are available to their sphere. A more meaningful method to implement a sphere like system was mentioned earlier, if WotC used some sort of keyword on each spell as a method of grouping them thematically. That way, new spells could be incorporated into existing spheres fairly easily.

Alternatively, even sticking with divine casters automatically knowing all core spells, including some support for divine spells that aren't automatically known would be a nice solution to splat books. Those new spells could be long lost spells/prayers recently uncovered, spells from remote monasteries, etc. That would at least make it easy to incorporate new spells if desired without making it onerous to do so. This would not be my ideal, to be honest, I've always felt that every divine caster shouldn't just automatically know every spell. Paraphrasing a book probably explains how I feel about divine magic best: "Why do I have to memorize all these rituals and prayers, you're my god, can't I just ask you?" "I'm busy, if I had to spend the time to listen to every priest, I'd be here all day. Those rituals and prayers let me just subconsciously grant my powers to you". Just because a god could listen to and grant each request for magical aid personally, it would seem pretty tiresome to me to have a constant stream of whiners asking for mojo 24/7 when they're trying to do all sorts of godly deeds.

I personally favor some kind of known spell system, but a nod could be made to allow access to spells you don't know by direct plea. IE - you don't know the spell/prayer/ritual to cure blindness, but the evil lich just blinded the only guy holding back the golem servants from smashing you and your friends to pieces, so you cry a desperate plea to your god etc. Whether this fell into some sort of 'divine intervention' rule set or was codified into a specific class ability (once per day spend a full round to petition your deity to grant you any divine spell off of your list, or some such) could be hammered out in the details. I used a similar principle in my 3.x games, where any divine caster could petition their deity for any spell, regardless of level, and have a chance of getting it granted. I also warned them that channeling that much power when they weren't ready for it could have disastrous consequences on their mortal body. I think I've only seen that house rule used twice, and both times were pretty epic (which is what that rule was designed for).
 

Li Shenron

Legend
(once per day spend a full round to petition your deity to grant you any divine spell off of your list, or some such)

I liked your post, but I wanted to point out that this apparently harmless idea is broken.

Hint: check how similar it actually is with the "Miracle" spell.
 

dark2112

First Post
I've never played 4e, so the spell may have changed, but "Duplicate any cleric spell of 8th level or lower (including spells to which you have access because of your domains)." seems to be the only similarity between Miracle and my idea, and my idea was also unrefined and with largely no restrictions in place for balance purposes. Since a cleric knows all divine spells, and could simply prepare a lower level spell in a higher level slot, that's really not the benefit that makes Miracle 9th level (although allowing a preparation based caster to have a handful of spontaneously castable spells does merit some balance consideration).

Unless you meant something besides the specific quote, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by broken. Unbalanced, sure, I could go with that. My phrasing wasn't meant to be a final version, merely illustrative of the idea, additional details required for balance. Or were you meaning that simply allowing clerics to be spontaneous casters to some degree is what is broken?
 

Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer
Unless you meant something besides the specific quote, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by broken. Unbalanced, sure, I could go with that.
Generally people use "broken" and "unbalanced" interchangeably. "Broken" is often just the more severe form of "unbalanced".

He's just pointing out that allowing someone to cast spells way above their level is extremely powerful and open to massive abuse. With the right players it might work ok. However, I know that if I told my players they could do that, they'd be petitioning for max level spells on a daily basis. If it killed them, they'd shrug and roll up a new character.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
Or were you meaning that simply allowing clerics to be spontaneous casters to some degree is what is broken?

Yes this is what I mean. It's the spontanous casting coupled with the large (unlimited) spell list.

Miracle (don't know the 4e version tho so I mostly refer to the 3e version) makes you a spontanous caster of every clerical spell. The price is that it always costs a 9th level slot. The limit is that you can only get it at 17th level.

Your idea IIUC makes you a spontaneous caster of every clerical spell at 1st level. The price is nothing (increased casting time to full round is nothing). The limit is 1/day and DM's right to say no (or a % chance). I hope you also meant that you are limited to spells of a level you can cast, but it sounded more like you're not so you can ask for a 9th level spell at 1st level.

The DM's right to stop this is the real limit. IMO it may work with a really good DM which keeps the occurrence rare enough, but still doesn't feel right at all. You're going to have one PC that can simply ask for anything, while the others watch.

Extreme disparity with the other PCs, unlimited flexibility... not in my games.

It would take a really really good DM to pull this off, so that it doesn't feel like as a catch-all method to just ask the DM to get you out of troubles when you don't have the perfect tool for the job. For me, this is the opposite of a good problem-solving game (which I still want an D&D adventure to be, but it doesn't have to be everybody's game... D&D can also be played as a combat-based game where problem-solving gets in the way).

EDIT> I used the word "broken" because it's like a broken tool. A very very good carpenter (or whatever) may still work with a broken tool, but not the others. You don't sell a broken tool in a toolbox, obviously.
 
Last edited:

dark2112

First Post
He's just pointing out that allowing someone to cast spells way above their level is extremely powerful and open to massive abuse.

I hope you also meant that you are limited to spells of a level you can cast, but it sounded more like you're not so you can ask for a 9th level spell at 1st level.

Casting spells of a higher power level was not the intent of my suggestion, I just included a similar house rule that I've used, and poorly worded the paragraph to imply that my suggestion didn't have a level limit. As mentioned earlier, once a day, full round, etc were all just jotted down notes for illustrative purposes, and various restrictions could and should be put onto such an ability, as needed. This ability was also suggested in concert with the idea that a divine caster would normally only know, say, 4 first level spells, and was meant to give some leeway into occasionally allowing access to the very specific spells that a cleric sometimes needs without bogging down known spell lists with every possible status curing magic. Changing the casting time to be 10 minutes, say, would still preserve that sort of intent without allowing the advantage of a spontaneous spell slot in combat.

I'd never really investigated spontaneous divine casting, since that wasn't really the angle I was going for, but I could see how my idea could lead in that direction. A quick peek showed three different base classes as spontaneous divine casters, one a variant on the core cleric, and all three went with a known spell limit, although the third allowed you to basically change all your known spells once a day, so with that one they basically are a spontaneous divine caster with access to every divine spell.

As for my house rule allowing overcasting, I can see how certain groups could attempt to abuse such a rule. I can also see how if a first level caster exploded beside his fighter friend, and his fighter friend lost an arm in the explosion, that the rest of the group would get pretty angry at the player trying to abuse the concept pretty fast. If the player has no attachment to their own character, show that they could affect the party. If the party as a whole has no attachment to their characters, perhaps you've made death/character replacement too cheap to use this particular house rule. Additionally, death isn't the only possible consequence. A cleric who's lost the ability to cast spells until they do a holy quest to make themselves worthy again is a pretty harsh consequence, and since it's not as final as death, there's no reason to roll up a new character to replace it.
 

Remove ads

Top