D&D 5E Arcane and Divine Magic

[DEFCON 1]

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.

• 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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree with Cosmic Kid for the majority of this.

I'd also like to add a few thoughts.

I love that 4e added in Primal as a power source. It truly fits better in my opinion. I don't like Druids gaining power from gods, if they are gaining power from gods they should be clerics. And in fact, this has led to me just completely removing nature deities from my games (luckily no one has wanted to play a Tempest or Nature Cleric yet) because, why would there be a God of the Forest, if there is a Great Spirit of the Forest?

Also, I think it makes complete sense that the Bard is the only "arcane" caster who can naturally heal. We associate bards with music and storytelling, but I think it is important to remember the root of that. They were keepers of lore, gatherers of knowledge and history. A Bard didn't just sing ditties for coppers, they sang the epics that told of the Great War that happened in ancient times to found the kingdom. Homer was a Bard, recounting the tales of great wars and their heroes with surprising accuracy.

How does this lend to healing? Bards seek a breadth of knowledge. Out of all the classes I think it makes sense for their lore and knowledge to be the widest, while wizards go deeper into Arcane secrets, Bards go out and try and find the full scope of arcane magic.

It is really a fascinating bit.

Now, while I'd love a little more clarity and difference between Arcane, Divine, Primal and whatever Bards are, I don't think getting it would make the game better. I think it would simply be a bit of a mess, so I'm content with what we have.

 

[Gadget]

While there has always been a certain amount of overlap between the traditionally "Divine" and "Arcane" spellcasters through the editions (Hold Person and Light come to mind off the top of my head), and I don't really agree with the OP's examples (Bards have pretty much always been able to cast healing spells, that is not new to 5e), I do lament the lack of "niche protection" complained about in the OP.

Spell casters used to be much more defined by their spell list and what spells they had access to, in addition to other class features (turning undead, weapon and armor proficiency, no "edged weapons" prohibition, etc.). Sure, as stated above, there was always some overlap, but in 5e this has been taken further than most editions; its far too easy to just raid other class's spell lists, either through a (sub)class feature, multi-classing, feats or what have you. While I can see how reducing the mechanical division in the spells themselves is beneficial in an economy of rules type way (all spells are the the same level for every class for example), it does start to encroach on the feel or story of the classes, imo. Which is ironic, given that one of 5e's goals was to focus on the story of the class and have the mechanics get out of the way.

3.x & Pathfinder had the potential, with a more complex mechanical framework, to get the story you want by manipulating the rules formulae in the right manner, sometimes at the cost of effectiveness, but tended to get bogged down or overloaded with said mechanics.

 

[tetrasodium]

One thing I dislike about 5E is the blurring between these two magic types. There used to be a certain amount of Niche Protection. There was a clear way arcane and divine powers were not only used but gained.

Divine Magic came from the Gods or Godlike forces and you had to have faith to use it.. Arcane magic came from the universe itself and you learned how to use it.

Now it's all mixed up. Some arcane users also can just cast divine magic spells exactly like arcane magic spells and some Divine Casters can just cast arcane magic spells the exact same way as Divine spells.

At the same time many of the casters are exactly like it was before. There is no longer any internal D&D world reasoning for anything. It's just all because. Sorcerers can just resurrect and heal the same as clerics and some clerics are throw around fireballs left and right.

If a bard casts a healing spell with no faith and no other power behind it..why can't a Wizard?

I'm going to go with the majority and repeat that the difference is largely more in how you access magic (faith vrs training & everything else). With that said though, your post is confusing a different issue of "sameyness" in 5e & the lore of settings like fr or greyhawk with the lack of arcane/divine split like you had in prior editions.

There has been a lot of discussion about sameyness between casters recently (for example). & there are a lot of contributing factors as a result of changes that in many cases improved on or resolved other problems like a prior inability to multiclass casters without crippling loss of progress, but that doesn't make it the cause of arcane vrs divine not being distinct enough.

On the lore side, even without the hard split, the vague references & general history still pretty cause problems for gm's trying to run settings with magical baselines similar to eberron or to a degree darksun & some takes on ravenloft by well meaning players. Eberron uses a baseline where divine magic comes from the caster's faith in something, usually a god(who even the caster might not believe is a real tangible creature) or some powerful being/force/ideal. Skipping over the complex & murky lore reasons why Athas (darksun) doesn't have divine magic, they do have elemental priests who get their power from a powerful (or not so powerful) being. Neither of those two themes disrupt a world where the gods are real & divine magic is a gift from the gods, but the reverse makes a mess because it forces an absolute into being that tends to touch mechanical aspects.

You need only look at the cleric's 10th level divine intervention class feature for a glaring example & see how it's wording tries to force the gm's hand when the gm wanted to run a campaign with a clerical tradition following a pantheon philosophy or force as more in line with those other settings.

Spoiler: those blurbs

Sure it's easy enough for the GM to sub in some random celestial/fiend/beast/etc, but that still leaves the much more problematic head butting of player & gm as the player keeps making well meaning statements that damage he gm's world construct. The player can't be blamed too much though since wotc does a good job of indoctrinating them to that setting specific lore baseline with plenty of fluff

Spoiler: Cleric

"
Arm s and eyes upraised toward the sun and a prayer on his lips, an elf begins to glow with an inner light that spills out to heal his battle-worn companions.

Chanting a song of glory, a dwarf swings his axe in wide swaths to cut through the ranks of orcs arrayed against him, shouting praise to the gods with every foe’s fall.

Calling dow n a curse upon the forces of undeath, a human lifts her holy symbol as light pours from it to drive back the zombies crow ding in on her companions.Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods1. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to em body the handiwork of their deities. No ordinary priest, a cleric is imbued with divine magic.
"

1: Tough luck to the gm running a world with a different afterlife or where youcan't call up a god on the phone to prove themselves where any of that isn't true if a player who reads the first section of fluff is at the table & decides they want to make that setting specific factual statement a big part f their character's identity.

Spoiler: Healers & Warriors

Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods2, flowing from them into the world3. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this pow er to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

Harnessing divine m agic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense o f a deity’s wishes.

Clerics combine the helpful magic o f healing and inspiring their allies with spells that harm and hinder foes. They can provoke awe and dread, lay curses of plague or poison, and even call down flames from heaven to consume their enemies. For those evildoers w ho will benefit most from a m ace to the head, clerics depend on their com bat training to let them wade into melee with the power of the gods on their side.

2: you can't have it be objectively the power of the gods when they do not or might not exist. That becomes especially problematic when that power comes from something that is not a god like the elementals used by those elemental priests from earlier.
3: except when that power is flowing from your faith or something like what you to believe the divine spark within you. In more than one game I've explained that to players following that faith & had either that player or another player (not the second player's character) keep going back to "gods".

Spoiler: Divine Agents

Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life o f temple service, carrying out their gods’ will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions o f authority and involving no com m union with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.

When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it.4 Pursuing the goals of the gods often involves braving dangers beyond the walls of civilization, smiting evil or seeking holy relics in ancient tombs. Many clerics are also expected to protect

their deities’ worshipers, which can mean fighting rampaging orc s, negotiating peace between warring nations, or sealing a portal that would allow a demon prince 5 to enter the world.
Most adventuring clerics maintain some connection to established temples and orders of their faiths. A temple might ask for a cleric’s aid, or a high priest might be in a position to demand it.

4: Great, now the class fluff itself is saying not that the character believes such a thing but that a god not only exists it literally told their character to go do something... way to set up the gm for a rough lore fight over a character wotc.
5: Demon princes are part of one specific cosmology used by settings like FR Greyhawk and maybe mystara(not 100% sure on that one). In a setting like darksun you have something very different & too complex/murkey going on for my loose understanding to summarize. In a setting like eberron you have demon overlords sure, but those fill a massively different role than demon princes & more importantly a god chunk of the faiths are concerned with extremely different things.

Spoiler: Spellcasting ability

W isdom is your spellcasting ability for your cleric spells. The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity.6 You use your Wisdom whenever a cleric spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your W isdom m odifier when setting the saving throw DC for a cleric spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.

6: except when it comes from something else or they don't exist. Meanwhile words like "faith in your beliefs" works for all the variations mentioned.

tl;dr: The OP can't exactly get too much blame for getting the wrong idea on the arcane/divine split when wotc did such a fine job setting him up for failure there.

 

[Krachek]

It is pretty easy to reduce the classes and subclasses offer to players to create an old style feeling,
Cleric choice can be limited to war and life domain,
Bard can be limited to valor college.
Some spell and feat can be banned.

 

[Ashrym]

Arcane vs divine is just terminology to indicate direct magic manipulation vs filtered magic manipulation and a pointless distinction. It's fluff.

Different classes manipulate magic in different ways and therefore can end up with different potential results. IE different spell lists. No need to overthink it or try to rationalize anything else.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't put any importance into how or what source a caster gets their spells from--it is just fluff. You might as well get rid of all the caster classes and just have one "caster" class and pick whatever spells you want.

Sure, separate it between a "spells known" and "spells prepared" classes if you must, but again it is just mechanics. Regardless of how you do it, 5E limits you to the same slot progressions. You can even get rid of the half-casters, they are really just warrior/casters split. They can't cast as powerful a spell, and they can't quite attack as much, etc.

 

[GameOgre]

Arcane vs divine is just terminology to indicate direct magic manipulation vs filtered magic manipulation and a pointless distinction. It's fluff.

Different classes manipulate magic in different ways and therefore can end up with different potential results. IE different spell lists. No need to overthink it or try to rationalize anything else.

I do agree that seems to be the new way of looking at things. It's just that for a long time things didn't work that way.

For this new way. It seems like they would have made new casters that used the magic in the new way. Why use the old way if you knocked out the building blocks for why it was done that way.

Maybe 6th edition will do away with Wizards and Clerics and make some new Caster that can use magic in all it's versatility.

My natural instinct is to dislike this new way. To want to keep to the past way of doing things but I have found it better to try to let things go and try to roll with the changes.

Otherwise Id still be playing BX. I do still love BX. That said I have had a lot of fun with 5E even though some things bother me.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For this new way. It seems like they would have made new casters that used the magic in the new way. Why use the old way if you knocked out the building blocks for why it was done that way.

I mean, that's kind of what they did, right? If you think of "arcane magic" as the wizard specifically and "divine magic" as the cleric specifically, there's not a lot of overlap in their spell lists, and they're doing similar things to what they've done since 1E (though some clerics have admittedly diversified a bit). It's just that there are also a bunch of other classes doing their own things, rather than copying the wizard's and cleric's homework.

 

[Ashrym]

Maybe 6th edition will do away with Wizards and Clerics and make some new Caster that can use magic in all it's versatility.

Bards do that now with magical secrets. The tradeoff is they don't get other bonuses to improve spellcasting like more focused casters do and spells known still limits them.