Arcane/Divine

[BluWolf]

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.

This is the concept that strikes most closely to how the system should work. Remember, they have stated they are doing a pretty big re-write of how spells work and only remnants of the vancian system will remain. I think the vancian system and its implications were complicating class balance/differentiations.

Some of this maybe cleared up by the Roles they are introducing.

As a game mechanic I think all "magic" (spells, psionics, prayers...) affects should work the same. This simplifies game play.

How character access or wield these abilities can and should be different and can be left open to interpretation. A game world (published or homebrewed) may have many different explanations for how maigc or prayers work. "Healing comes from Athena!" "Fireball is a tiny portal opened into Hell with the combination of rodent feces and the true words that bind the cosmological weave." Whatever.

The reasons how and why I think are a matter of the context (I don't want to be denegrating and call it fluff because it is important) and setting.

One thing I would LUV to see go away is the concept of Clerical Domains. I liked them in concept when they appeared years ago but I thhink in execution they just turned into a nightmare.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If they went with templates like that, I'd still base the Divine one on Wisdom and the Psionic one based on Con, with a fatigue factor.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

If you look at 1Ed AD&D, several of the cleric spells were based upon miracles & rituals from the Old Testament and other RW holy texts. That has continued to this day.

I miss sticks to snakes in 3e. Hopefully they'll bring in back in 4th edition

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ditto!

Especially if they can figure out a way to make it more generalized...

 

[Merlion]

Well, based on the extremely limited information we have at present, I dont think anything is really going to change as far as the whole Arcane/Divine issue.

My personal preference would be for it to be as in Arcana Evolved. No concept of "arcane" and "divine"...just magic. "Priest" as a cultural role that any character can take on, rather than a class, and not even tied to spellcasting. A single spell list with a characters access to it determined by class (not some broad group conception) and by character choices. Spell failure in armor based on class, or simply removed entirely.

But I dont think this is going to happen. I figure that none of the conceptual issues of the Cleric are likely to be fixed either, but I do think it will at least be balanced mechanically. Even if its power level isnt brought down, as I hope, the power/versatility of all classes looks like its going to increase so hopefully that would bring everyone else in line with the Cleric.


If they insist on keeping the concepts of "Arcane" and "Divine", then theres a number of things they should, but probably wont fix. Partially because some of them would be pretty hard to totally fix.

First, they'd need to get rid of the "Divine magic=healing magic" and "priest/cleric class=healer class" ideas. God magic doesnt automatically entail healing magic. And "Priest" or "Cleric" doesnt automatically entail primary healer class. If they want to have a Priest class thats a spellcaster that gets its powers from a god, then do that. And if you want to have a Healer class, then do that, but it isnt the same thing, except in the case of a Priest of a god of healing or similar. Have the Priest's spell list reflect the nature of their God.

Of course, the trouble then is if the Priest class is a primary spellcaster with minimal physical abilities, what about the Priests of martial gods?

Of course, thats why Priest should simply be a conceptual role that any character can take on, rather than a class.

But regardless, I think that in addition, the Wizard or equivalent should have his range broadened. As the class whose sole focus is magic, the fact that he has no access to spells like Spell Resistance, Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, or any healing spell is as far as I'm concerned simply a legacy issue.

Also, I think a Paladin/Champion class is very viable. The D&D Paladin should be broadened, and the Cleric loose much of its physical capabilities to differentiate them.

 

[F4NBOY]

I miss sticks to snakes in 3e. Hopefully they'll bring in back in 4th edition

And I hope they also introduce Frog Rain, Split the Sea, Water to Blood and my prefered, Water to Wine!

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, based on the extremely limited information we have at present, I dont think anything is really going to change as far as the whole Arcane/Divine issue.

My personal preference would be for it to be as in Arcana Evolved. No concept of "arcane" and "divine"...just magic. "Priest" as a cultural role that any character can take on, rather than a class, and not even tied to spellcasting. A single spell list with a characters access to it determined by class (not some broad group conception) and by character choices. Spell failure in armor based on class, or simply removed entirely.

But I dont think this is going to happen.

Pretty much word for word my thinking on the matter too.

Cheers

 

[Merlion]

Pretty much word for word my thinking on the matter too.

Cheers

To be honest, I'm not even entirely sure why I am even taking part in discussion of 4e for two reasons. One, I dont really play pen and paper at all anymore due to the legistical issues (although the online gaming support mentioned for 4e could make a difference in that) and two, I'm not sure I could at this point hardly even stand to play in any game with a D&D Cleric. I might be able to handle it if 4e makes the balanced, but their conceptual issues just really really get on my nerves.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Slightly off topic, but in my last D&D campaign (set in Eberron), I ditched the wizard, sorcerer AND cleric and replaced them with a single class called Scholar. Had d6 for hp, prepared spells like a wizard but had access to both wizard and cleric spell lists.

Some scholars worked for the temples and claimed that their power was the result of the divine sovereign host, others worked for the houses and claimed that their power was the result of MaD sCiencE and so forth.

It worked really nicely. I forsee that I might end up doing something similar in 4e once it appears (unless they manage to do something that really knocks my socks off in some way )

Cheers

 

[Quartz]

Here's a thought: merge arcane and divine spells, but clerics get access to domain spells only. Start with 2 domains and take the Bonus Domain feat as required. So your cleric of Pelor might start with the Sun and Healing domains, then add the Good domain later and so on.