Arcane/Divine

[Jhaelen]

There would have been two choices I'd have approved:
1) make the distinction meaningful again. Define very clearly what kinds of effects belong to the divine realm and what effects can only be created using the arcane realm.
2) get rid of the distinction. Allow every (spellcasting) class to pick up any (spell) effect.

The info released so far indicates it won't be choice 2). So I really hope, it'll be choice 1).

As an aside: I would have infinitely preferred it, if they'd incorporated psionics into the game right from the start. For me, 'spells' like teleport and telekinesis belong firmly in the psionic realm. Arcane magic simply shouldn't have these effects (unless they chose 2) as outlined above).

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't want a generic list of spells and for there to be no difference between arcane and divine other than power source. I think that 3rd edition blended the two magic types far too much. The domains are the main culprit, as the designers were too lazy to think of new divine spells and just robbed signature spells from the wizard list to fill the domains.

I want the different types of magic to be seperate, with clear, distinct advantages and drawbacks. For a cleric of the sun god and a cleric of the god of death to have identical spells known except for 18 signature spells is really lame, imo. I think clerics of very different faiths should have very different spell lists.

I also think different schools/traditions of arcanists should have very different focuses in the types of spells they use. Just as a cleric of the sun god and death god should be different, a "traditional wizard" and necromancer should be quite different in spell selection and class powers. It's more flavorful and cool that way, imo. They started to do this in 3.5 with classes like the dread necromancer and warmage, and I liked it. Spellcasters are more interesting when they can't do everything; when the type of magic they use has limitations. The "I can do anything and everything" type of magic user is very unappealing to me.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd like to see the concept of arcane/divine preserved. Evidently, it will be with the "power source" idea. What I don't want to see is separate spell lists based on power source. Or at least, not such that spell lists must be written out for each class, which is terribly clunky, and subject to problems as new classes and spells get added.

At the very least, go the Arcana Evolved route, and make the "arcane" and "divine" descriptors on the classic spells of each type (i.e. the bedrock, Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D stuff). Then they can give access to the spells based on descriptor. If they want to say that the wizard class gives free access to all "arcane" spells, then cool. If someone has an alterate class (or house rules the wizard) to not do that, then it's easy to manage.

 

[SSquirrel]

Yet again I point to Arcana Evolved and say "Yes please". No split, it helps take the pressure off the cleric to be a pez dispenser when every caster has access to healing magic. In AE the Greenbond and Champion of Life are the 2 obvious best healers (in that order) with nice extra healing bonuses and access to some better heals, but if a magister wanted access to those spells too, they could pick it up w/a feat or 2

 

[Crazy Jerome]

SSQuirrel, bah, an AE Wood Witch that takes Lifesong and has a halfway decent Wis, can heal almost as well as a Greenbond. With a good Wis, and the right feats, it's even closer. The Champion of Life isn't in that league.

Of course, that's one of the other nice things about using descriptors and feats instead of spell lists, for spell access: We can argue such things.

 

[Anthraxus]

I'd rather Divine/Arcane remain separate.

Possibly with completely different spell lists(with some overlap, of course- Detecting/dispelling magic, etc..).

And the divine side with kind of a 2E "sphere" feel to it. Clerics of different gods having different spell lists.

No more HUGE spell list to pick and choose from!!!

 

[fuindordm]

I very much agree. I'm fine with clerics having magic as powerul as that of a wizard, but they should not be as versatile as they are in 3rd edition. I think there's something wrong, for example, when a cleric is better at crafting magic items than a wizard because they automatically have access to 20 spells per level.

 

[SSquirrel]

SSQuirrel, bah, an AE Wood Witch that takes Lifesong and has a halfway decent Wis, can heal almost as well as a Greenbond. With a good Wis, and the right feats, it's even closer. The Champion of Life isn't in that league.

Of course, that's one of the other nice things about using descriptors and feats instead of spell lists, for spell access: We can argue such things.

Heh haven't looked at a Lifesong Wood Witch in awhile. The Witch seemed like a neat idea, but not quite a class for me to play. All 3 are excellent healers tho. Some might even say the Magister may be one of the better healers, simply b/c of his broader spell access. But the extra heal abilities per day really up the ante heh.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

A couple of different possibilities are acceptable to me.

1) One spellcaster class who chooses his spells based on a theme.
2) A less militant cleric with spell lists tailored more to his religion and the sorcerer.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I REALLY hope they do one massive list of generic spells, and then have a list of templates that differ the spellcasting types. For example:

Arcane Template: Spells are based on Intelligence, require verbal and somatic components. Suffer from Spell Failure due to armor. Spells with an elemental descriptor such as fire, cold, electrical, etc are treated as one level lower for purposes of accessibility.

Divine Template: Spells are based on Charisma*, require verbal and Focus components. Do not suffer from Spell Failure due to armor. Spells with a healing descriptor are treated as one level lower for purposes of accessibility.

Psionic Template: Spells are based on Wisdom, require no components. Do not suffer from Spell Failure due to armor. Spells with a "psionic" descriptor are treated as one level lower for purposes of accessibility. Spells without the "psionic" descriptor require a minimum of a full round action to cast.

...or something like that.


* I actually think it fits better than Wisdom.