Arcane Magic/Divine Magic: Should there be a difference?

[Dark Psion]

I voted other because my perfect system would be a four power set up like the elements are done.

Arcane opposing Nature
Divine opposing Psionics

Bards would be right in the center with limited access to all of them.

 

[Silveras]

I voted for other. I do want there to be a different feel between Arcane and Divine. For completeness, I don't allow Psionics in my campaign; I feel it is more SciFi than Fantasy.

I like my Divine casters to feel like the agents of something else, while the Arcane casters are delvers into learning.

As such, I am adopting the "Spontaneous Divine Casters" option from Unearthed Arcana (NOT Arcana Unearthed), and considering making ALL Arcane casters use prepared spells.

 

[Caspian]

Question of backstory

There shouldn't be a need of separating how the spells work into two seperate classes, access should be different according the class, because, the source of magic, isn't mechanically important, its how they cast and what they have access to which is, and that's easily explained by different access.

In particular settings maybe all magic is derived from gods, or sacrifice, again something the setting designer has to deal with, but probably not the game designer.



Jonathan

 

[Lokishadow]

Weeellllll....

I'd first like to say that I post replies before reading anyone else's posts, to capture the "flavor" of my reaction.

I voted "Other." Why?

It's complicated. But take a look at the flavor, or style, of magic that the character wields. As far as game balance goes, the present system works fine. But the blurring of the boundaries can be seen in Oriental Adventures, with the Shugenja. And then we get into more complex variants, like witches, warlocks (a misnomer), necromancers, diviners, seers, etcetera.

Maybe it's because I focus my games more on plot and character development than rules. But the point is, I try to give my players what they want. This leads to some really interesting class spell lists (the simplest way to change spellcaster styles). For example, we had the "Flame of Purity," who could heal wounds, raise the dead, banish evil, and call down the most potent of fire spells from either spell list (wizard or priest). He was capped to those types of spells, however.

I don't feel that there should be a difference, as the spells make the spellcaster, and in a large party, the spells on a list go a long way towards defining the character. Rather, I think that the spells should be chosen on the basis of the desired "magical personality" of the character class in question.

 

[drothgery]

I voted "other". For a generic fantasy RPG, I don't like the arcane/divine/psi split, and a unified system based on d20 Wheel of Time channeling (scratch the broken linking mechanics and the gender variation) or XPH psionics mechanics would probably be my choice if I were building "d20 Fantasy" from scratch.But the arcane/divine split has a lot of tradition behind it in D&D; going to a system where something like the WoT initiate was the only core magic-using class would change a lot of assumptions, and I'm not sure you'd be playing D&D anymore in such a game.

 

[William Ronald]

I went with "other".

My poll answer would be "depends on what you are trying to accomplish."

I do beleive that the current system is well balanced, and has good niche protection and gives the classes distinct identity.

But if you are going for a different, specific feel for magic or magic-using characters in your game, you may specifically want something different. For example, when I first started fiddling around with shaman type characters, I went into fits over where it fit. You could make good arguments for either.

Similarly, if you have a specific theory about how magic works, neither arcane nor divine may fit.

On another note, look at all the different witch books out there and see how all over the map different takes on witches are WRT divine and arcane.

The system is fine and stands on its own well, but if you try to put other concepts to the table, you have to adapt it to the dichotomy and where it goes may be a judgement call.

I am trying to set up a world with parallels between our own, as well as some key differences -- including nonhuman races and magic. I think the system can work well, but it seems that there are some changes in the different editions of D&D. I do like Arcana Unearthed, and I am thinking of maybe allowing the magic system from there to run with a D&D 3.5 magic system -- but with some modifications. Do you think this would be too confusing, or should only be used as an "interim" measure. (There are a few people who contacted me about a game, so I will e-mail them soon to see if they are interested and what they think. As a DM, I think it is important to consider the interests and desires of players.)

Wombat originally posted:
While I voted the Arcana Unearthed option (it is my favourite of those listed), the point does indeed come down to "what are you trying to map here?"

D&D (D20 or otherwise) doesn't really follow any particular fantasy tradition; instead, it is a blending of many different ones, some modern (Vance), and some not so. While some legends differentiate between Divine and, say, Infernal magics, I have run across very few (at least in the pre-D&D world) where there is a noted difference between Arcane and Divine in the D&D sense. Most of the fantasy stories and/or legends that I like actually use something much closer to ceremonial magic, something that D&D in any of its incarnations has modelled poorly. But ceremonial magic, while impressive and insteresting, doesn't work well in games where everything is done in a 6 second timeframe. If magic doesn't work more or less at the drop of a hat, the magic-based characters, whether arcane or divine, would have no real place or purpose in the game, at least as PCs.

So for gaming purposes I like what Monte did with AU; for other purposes I prefer ceremonial magic.

I also think your sig has very good advice for GMs to follow.

I am familiar with Sir James Frazier's The Golden Bough , which describes many real world rituals and customs for everything from growing crops to cheating death. Possibly spells from AU or 3.5 could easily be incorporated into a ritual. The incantations from Unearthed Arcana are also interesting. I am finding that creating a campaign setting is more work than I anticipated and requires more thought. However, it is fun. One of the more interesting things I have noticed is how one good idea often leads to another.

As for the poll results, it seems that many of the people who responded are not satisfied with the current "Vancian" magic system. The poll has given me a lot to think about for my campaign. Thanks for the responses so far.