Throw me into the camp that agrees that there really isn't a separation between "arcane" magic and "divine" magic. Because with the different types of classes in the game all the manner of ways people can access it... only using those two categories is misleading and not really apply.
There is little to no reason why the magic clerics use and the magic druids use should be considered the same thing. However or from whomever druids get their magic... they aren't gods or even outer planar beings, so calling their magic "divine" is a misnomer. Same way with the magic rangers can access. Heck, nowadays with paladins gaining their abilities from the oaths they swear, their magic could be considered no more "divine" than anyone else's (despite having a Channel Divinity ability, which implies them actually getting their magic from the gods if indirectly.)
Likewise... what is it about warlock magic that is at all "arcane"? Heck... warlocks are actually probably the closest to the clerics in terms of how and who they are receive their magic, so they are quite possibly the best second class to have "divine" magic, moreso than druids or anyone else. If you're going to nitpick that the outer planar creatures that give warlocks their power aren't "gods" and thus the magic isn't "divine" (despite the fact those creatures can be archdevils, archdemons, archfey, great old ones, all of whom are just as-- if not even more-- powerful than many of the so-called gods that are granting clerics their magic)... then in no way can you claim druid or ranger magic is "divine" either. They're getting their magic from the plants and trees... that's no more god granted than anything else.
It's exactly this wishy-washy definition of "magic" itself that has made me always shrug when some people have been adamant that things like psionics AREN'T "magic". Because really... what is "magic" after all? Is it an actually quantifiable "thing", or is it merely a descriptor used to detail all the wacky crap some people can do that most other people can't? If it's the former... then there is no such thing as "magic"-- instead there are a dozen different things each individual class does that are completely separate things. Nobody casts spells except for wizards. Clerics grant divine blessings. Bards sing dirges. Monks harness ki. Warlocks invoke patronage. Sorcerers access their inner power. Psions tap into brainpower. Paladins swear oaths. And so on. None of it is "magic", because every single thing is its own thing.
But if it's the latter... then magic becomes merely the word used to describe the category of things that people do that doesn't seem possible. It's no different than "Science" or "Technology". They aren't "things" per se... they are the overarching group name. So in that regard... "arcane magic" and "divine magic" merely become their own descriptors of a bunch of similar types of magic like "hard science" and "social science" are categories of similar types of sciences, or "computer technology" and "automotive technology" are categories of similar types of tech. But if that's the case... then the in-world magicians of D&D need to do a better job of working out their categorization because right now the words they use don't make a lot of sense. 4E Power Sources were a little better at it, but even they weren't completely on the ball.
Even these categories aren't perfect, because of the way 5E just completely throws out nonsensical combinations of power type and power access like the Divine Sorcerer or the Shadow Monk... or how "wizards" are all lumped together into one thing even though every single one does wildly different stuff. But that's what happens when you use these broad class names and identities for gameplay simplicity sake.
There is little to no reason why the magic clerics use and the magic druids use should be considered the same thing. However or from whomever druids get their magic... they aren't gods or even outer planar beings, so calling their magic "divine" is a misnomer. Same way with the magic rangers can access. Heck, nowadays with paladins gaining their abilities from the oaths they swear, their magic could be considered no more "divine" than anyone else's (despite having a Channel Divinity ability, which implies them actually getting their magic from the gods if indirectly.)
Likewise... what is it about warlock magic that is at all "arcane"? Heck... warlocks are actually probably the closest to the clerics in terms of how and who they are receive their magic, so they are quite possibly the best second class to have "divine" magic, moreso than druids or anyone else. If you're going to nitpick that the outer planar creatures that give warlocks their power aren't "gods" and thus the magic isn't "divine" (despite the fact those creatures can be archdevils, archdemons, archfey, great old ones, all of whom are just as-- if not even more-- powerful than many of the so-called gods that are granting clerics their magic)... then in no way can you claim druid or ranger magic is "divine" either. They're getting their magic from the plants and trees... that's no more god granted than anything else.
It's exactly this wishy-washy definition of "magic" itself that has made me always shrug when some people have been adamant that things like psionics AREN'T "magic". Because really... what is "magic" after all? Is it an actually quantifiable "thing", or is it merely a descriptor used to detail all the wacky crap some people can do that most other people can't? If it's the former... then there is no such thing as "magic"-- instead there are a dozen different things each individual class does that are completely separate things. Nobody casts spells except for wizards. Clerics grant divine blessings. Bards sing dirges. Monks harness ki. Warlocks invoke patronage. Sorcerers access their inner power. Psions tap into brainpower. Paladins swear oaths. And so on. None of it is "magic", because every single thing is its own thing.
But if it's the latter... then magic becomes merely the word used to describe the category of things that people do that doesn't seem possible. It's no different than "Science" or "Technology". They aren't "things" per se... they are the overarching group name. So in that regard... "arcane magic" and "divine magic" merely become their own descriptors of a bunch of similar types of magic like "hard science" and "social science" are categories of similar types of sciences, or "computer technology" and "automotive technology" are categories of similar types of tech. But if that's the case... then the in-world magicians of D&D need to do a better job of working out their categorization because right now the words they use don't make a lot of sense. 4E Power Sources were a little better at it, but even they weren't completely on the ball.
- Divine power should be clerics, warlocks, and elementalists (any power granted or gained from a planar creature or planar source).
- Arcane or Primal power should be wizards, druids, bards, rangers, and barbarians (any power accessed through the energy upon the Prime plane.)
- Psionic power should be monks, sorcerers, paladins and psions (any power that comes directly out of the energy or spirit of a person.)
Even these categories aren't perfect, because of the way 5E just completely throws out nonsensical combinations of power type and power access like the Divine Sorcerer or the Shadow Monk... or how "wizards" are all lumped together into one thing even though every single one does wildly different stuff. But that's what happens when you use these broad class names and identities for gameplay simplicity sake.
Last edited: