Spelljammer Dark Sun confirmed? Or, the mysterious case of the dissappearing Spelljammer article...

[Maxperson]

"Arcane" being in world fluff, and fluff isn't rules. What do druidic foci (listed right alongside arcane foci on the equipment list) channel?

Listed after arcane foci and they channel the divine obviously. And is it your contention that every kind of spell causes defilement on Athas, or just arcane?

Which is why I mentioned multiclassed wizard/bards. As a wizard, a character explicitly learns to cast spells with an arcane focus. So they should be able to use a wand to cast a bard spell. But RAW, they cannot.

Because bardic spells need music which arcane foci do not provide, or because bards do not know how to use one properly, or... Your multi-class example falls well short of being proof that the RAW on page 151 which says ARCANE spells is wrong.

Note that you do not need an instrument to cast bard spells. Whilst bards can use an instrument, they can instead use material components from a spell component pouch. Bard spells can be cast without music.

Because all spells can use components to override all else. If you want to avoid component use, bardic spells require their focus to provide music.

Now, if you wanted to rule that a wizard/bard can cast bard spells with their wand that would be a perfectly legitimate use of DM fiat. Because DM's call trumps rules. Alternatively, one might rule that a bard who is a devout follower of the god of music is casting divine magic. Since it has no mechanical meaning, it's not going to break anything.

It does have weak mechanical meaning as the rule on page 151 clearly demonstrates. You're right, though, that it breaks nothing to allow any class to use any foci, or even to not require components or foci at all. Not breaking anything isn't proof that the weak mechanics aren't there, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Fluff. There are no arcane spells.

Mechanic. Every last spell cast by an arcane caster is an arcane spell. Every last spell cast by a divine caster is a divine spell.

 

[Maxperson]

Crawford said mostly, not completely. If an arcane focus can be used for wizard spells, then wizard spells are arcane spells. Idk how this is up for debate.

I don't either and I missed that last night. Mostly a story distinction means partly a mechanical distinction. He was probably thinking of Athas and foci when he said that.

 

[Maxperson]

let me start by agreeing 100% with you and how you read this... but it brings to mind a related qustion

in 5e how defined a diffrence is there between arcane and divine magic really, and how much is just a hold over from prev editions?

Very little, which is why from the get go I have described it as very weak mechanically like alignment.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Listed after arcane foci and they channel the divine obviously.

Obviously why? Because of lore you have brought from earlier editions. There is nothing in 5e that requires druids to be divine casters. A druid can't use a divine focus, a cleric can't use a druidic focus.

Because bardic spells need music

Which we know is rubbish because they can use a component pouch.

It does have weak mechanical meaning as the rule on page 151 clearly demonstrates

That's not a meaning. Because in order to mean something, it has to do something, which it doesn't.

Mechanic. Every last spell cast by an arcane caster is an arcane spell. Every last spell cast by a divine caster is a divine spell.

What about spells cast by artificer, or with the shadow touched feat or the fey touched feet? 5e does not specify that classes are divine casters, or arcane casters or both, or neither. It says what some people think they are, for some of them, but that all.

Asmodeus can grant spells to warlocks. Asmodeus is a god. Spells granted by gods are divine. Ergo a fiend-pact warlock of Asmodeus is a divine caster.

 

[Parmandur]

Crawford said mostly, not completely. If an arcane focus can be used for wizard spells, then wizard spells are arcane spells. Idk how this is up for debate.

Crawford says that there is no general rule for arcane or divine magic. The "moatly" is pointing towards the Class specific rules that gesture towards the narrative, though those are themselves riddled with exceptions.

You may bot be aware of this, but Arcane and Divine used to he hard distinctions baked into the Spells themselves, that had a lot.of universal rule applications regarding things like wearing armor and Spell failure. That is all gone.

 

[Parmandur]

there are no spell slots per class you use any spell slot to cast any spell so once you know/prep a spell it isn't a wizard or bard or cleric or ranger spell it is just a spell you have.

But use of foci are segregated by Class. That's why it is significant when features like Bardic Secrets let you treat non-Bard Spells as Bard Spells, or Domain Spells as Cleric Spells.

 

[Maxperson]

Obviously why? Because of lore you have brought from earlier editions. There is nothing in 5e that requires druids to be divine casters. A druid can't use a divine focus, a cleric can't use a druidic focus.

Regardless of any lore, they ARE divine casters. Probably because they draw from nature and often nature gods.

Which we know is rubbish because they can use a component pouch.

It literally cannot be rubbish to say that bards need music when using a focus instead of components due to being able to use a component pouch. Your statement there doesn't make sense at all. If a bard opts to use a focus, they NEED music to do so. It's really simple. Using the actual components for the spell is different.

That's not a meaning. Because in order to mean something, it has to do something, which it doesn't.

It does do something. It allows certain classes to channel arcane spells in order to not use material components. That's something.

What about spells cast by artificer, or with the shadow touched feat or the fey touched feet? Since 5e does not specify that classes are divine casters, or arcane casters or both, or neither. It says what some people think they are, for some of them, but that all.

Page 9 of Tashas, "Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power."

As for the feats, I'm not going to look them up, but if they don't say it would be a DM call.

Asmodeus can grant spells to warlocks. Asmodeus is a god. Spells granted by gods are divine. Ergo a fiend-pack warlock of Asmodeus is a divine caster.

Asmodeus does not grant spells to warlocks. He alters them via a pact to enable them to use arcane power in a variety of ways. Asmodeus does grant spells to his clerics, which are divine.

 

[Parmandur]

let me start by agreeing 100% with you and how you read this... but it brings to mind a related qustion

in 5e how defined a diffrence is there between arcane and divine magic really, and how much is just a hold over from prev editions?

It's entirely a holdover from prior editions. There is no general rule that makes the distinction, no Spell is designated one way or another. It survives a bit in Class Spell lists, but there are multiple ways those can be fudged.

 

[Maxperson]

Crawford says that there is no general rule for arcane or divine magic. The "moatly" is pointing towards the Class specific rules that gesture towards the narrative, though those are themselves riddled with exceptions.

No general rule =/= no categories of divine and arcane magic. Those categories don't have a general rule for what they are about, but arcane foci and divine foci do interact with those categories. That's why he said mostly story.

You may bot be aware of this, but Arcane and Divine used to he hard distinctions baked into the Spells themselves, that had a lot.of universal rule applications regarding things like wearing armor and Spell failure. That is all gone.

In 3e it was possible to get divine spells as an arcane caster and vice versa. Such crossovers changed to become the type of magic used by that caster. Just like in 5e.