Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 2445252" data-attributes="member: 10397">Well, you can disagree with me all you want, but you cant disagree with the material. A careful objective look at the spell lists will show that overall, while they are often very different in their uses the Wizard and Cleric spell lists are, within context, roughly equal in overall usefulness.  People have been conditioned into believing that Clerics are vastly inferior spellcasters, partially because they used to be, and partially because their spells are less appealing in feel. But in practice and in context, its not really the case.Especially when you factor everything else in. You might convince me that the Wizard has slightly more options (although some are totally non-combat and not even neccesarily utility like the "pure" Illusions, Silent Image etc), but when you consider that a Cleric also gets every single spell on their list for free...I dont think any minor inferiorty as a spellcaster is enough to warrant the Cleric getting heavy armor profciency and being able to cast spells in such totally unrestricted. Let alone to also get a d8 Hit Die, medium BAB and good Fort saves...but thats a whole other deal.The Druid is less of an issue as far as the armor thing since 1) they actually are inferior spellcasters and 2) they dont really wear armor anyway Yep. And thats my big problem with "arcane" spell failure. Its simply a holdover from previous editions, before it was decided that any class that gained powers from a "divine" source was going to be more powerful than everyone else. Yep. And still be subject to spell failure. No...not as portrayed in D&D its not. In Medieveal times, especially in the areas D&D is most strongly tied to, there was nothing like the concept of "arcane" and "divine" magic. Especially not "divine" magic. Priest didnt cast spells, or even claim to. It was believed that a few saints were able to perform miracles, but only a ~very~ few, and only to a very limited degree, and it was not thought of as "magic" not even as "divine magic". It was God working a miracle through a person.  And then as you say magic or witchcraft was condemed as evil. But so would have been a person who claimed that ~they~ were working miracles at will. It was only if God was simply using you to do it that it was acceptable.There was nothing like the DnD concept of "arcane" and "divine" magic which are fundementally alike accept that one comes from one source and one from another. D&D more or less originated that idea, as it is presented in the rules. Especially the part where "divine" magic supposedly does the healing and "arcane" magic is offensive.Even in most fantasy, there is no real line. The Wizards of Earthsea for instance were powerful healers, and served an idea of Balance, but they had the same sort of abilities as DnD Wizards as well, and conversely in David Eddings's Elenium/Tamuli the spellcasters gain their powers directly from their god, but the powers they use are again just like a D&D Wizard. In 2nd edition you had the "priest spells/wizard spells" with "sphere and schools" thing, but in 1st edition there wasnt even that. No broad catagories, just each classes spell lists. Which is another odd thing 3.x went back to individual class lists, but jumped up the big monolithic catagory stuff for some reason</blockquote>

Verification