D&D 5E Arcane and Divine Magic

[The Mirrorball Man]

In my opinion, "Divine Magic" is magic granted by a sentient being. The licence can be revoked at any time. That's the only difference with Arcane Magic and it's very easy to implement.

 

[Fenris-77]

In 5e the difference is the spell lists. Sadly, sort of, its not more differentiated than that. I get why that was the design philosophy, but Divine magic especially I think suffers from a flavor standpoint when it doesn't feel any different than arcane magic other than the spell descriptions.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

That's fact. There used to be 2 camps. Now each class is its own camp, and has a clear way its powers are used and gained. At least the major spellcasters, while secondarily spellcasters are less defined in terms of source.

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.

Still true for Cleric and Wizard.

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.

There have always been spells which were on both lists. I am not even sure there are now more than previous two editions. Certainly a Cleric cannot cast ALL Wizard's spells or viceversa.

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.

One Sorcerer subclass from an optional book can resurrect, and it represents someone who IS divine. That's a lot of "world reasoning" for me. A lot more options to break the boundaries were available in previous editions.

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

Because of the same niche protection you say you are missing!

 

[Fenris-77]

It all feels the same because there's no difference. (Said Captain Obvious to his crew) The problem is that there's nothing divine about divine spell casting. Nor anything Bard-y about Bard spell casting. It all feels the same because it is. Pick a spell and cast it. The only difference is piddly crap about rituals and preparation, which, while important, don't make the actual casting feel any different. 5e relies on the actual spell and effect to make the distinction, which kind of sucks IMO.

 

[Li Shenron]

In 5e the difference is the spell lists. Sadly, sort of, its not more differentiated than that. I get why that was the design philosophy, but Divine magic especially I think suffers from a flavor standpoint when it doesn't feel any different than arcane magic other than the spell descriptions.

But it IS differentiated. Each class is now different, so it's MORE differentiated than ever.

The Arcane vs Divine separation comes from when there were only Wizards or Clerics, and some creatures cast spells as either of those (e.g. the Elf class in BECMI).

When other casters came along, they were fitted into either camp, for example Druids. Until 3e they were still trying to fit everyone into either arcane or divine, and it started to feel like a chore. 4e tried to increase the number of camps (I don't know how many, at least 4 or 5), and to use them also as an explanation for non-spell abilities. 5e practically realizes that each class has its own concept and explanation of why they cast spells, so it increases to one camp per class (spellcasting subclasses of non-spellcasting classes still relate to another class more or less).

For every class it is very clear why they have spells, except the Ranger, and maybe also the Bard is partially shrouded in mystery. If the mystery bothers you, fill the blanks and figure out where do the Bardic spells come from in your own fantasy world.

 

[Fenris-77]

We were talking about spell casting, not classes right? I didn't read the OP so I may have jumped in wrong. From a casting standpoint, there's essentially no differentiation outside of prep and rituals, which aren't enough to make things feel any different. My own taste would be to have Divine casters actually feel different in the actual casting. Specifically, their god should matter, and it really doesn't. I completely get the design impetus there, I just don't like the same-y feel of it. The kind of spells, and specific spells, are indeed different, but I think that's a weak place to differentiate. Just a flavor thing for me, it doesn't prevent me playing and liking 5e at all.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For every class it is very clear why they have spells, except the Ranger, and maybe also the Bard is partially shrouded in mystery. If the mystery bothers you, fill the blanks and figure out where do the Bardic spells come from in your own fantasy world.

I have a lot of fun in my campaign with the fact that according to every analysis by sage and scholar bardic magic shouldn't work, and yet it does. Like Tolkien's Tom Bombadil, they're friendly, singing reminders that the world is bigger and more mysterious than we can wrap our minds around.

Or like Las Vegas' Penn & Teller, they're just cheating somehow.

Or both.

 

[Fenris-77]

And, much like Tom Bombadil, the Bard is also the most powerful magical creature you are likely to see until tier four. I wade against the current on Bards, I love them in 5e. I love the Lore Bard especially. Not so much the signing and dancing, but the combo of full casting and 3rd pillar utility is very much my bag. Is it a little cheesey? Sure. I still love it though. Bard is also my go-to MC for hard to realize concept characters, along with Warlock. When I made Dirk Gently for 5e, I needed the Lore Bard goodies to make the mechanics happen.

 

[Ashrym]

Is it a little cheesey? Sure. I still love it though.

Barss aren't cheesy, campy, or spoony until players make them that way. Read The Silmarillion, for examples.

Tolkien based many of his most powerful characters on bards. It's not just Tom Bombadil.

 

[Li Shenron]

We were talking about spell casting, not classes right? I didn't read the OP so I may have jumped in wrong. From a casting standpoint, there's essentially no differentiation outside of prep and rituals, which aren't enough to make things feel any different. My own taste would be to have Divine casters actually feel different in the actual casting. Specifically, their god should matter, and it really doesn't. I completely get the design impetus there, I just don't like the same-y feel of it. The kind of spells, and specific spells, are indeed different, but I think that's a weak place to differentiate. Just a flavor thing for me, it doesn't prevent me playing and liking 5e at all.

Ok, I thought you were criticising 5e specifically, but I think there has never been a big differentiation in the actual CASTING mechanism. Spontaneous casting (of healing spells in 3e) could be seen as such. Maybe there have been some minor differences in using components.