D&D 5E are spells Divine and Arcane anymore?


log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
So, in game, why isn't Cure Wounds etc on the wizard list?

Because you can't use arcane magic to make the effect.
Arcane or Divine is the method.
Cure Wounds is the effect.


A wizard, warlock, or sorcerer can not manipulate the weave to heal wounds as a spell. The formula requires a divine component or must be distilled into a potion.
 

Remathilis

Legend
So, in game, why isn't Cure Wounds etc on the wizard list?

Bards touch the primal Words of Creation. The words of creation repair the damage done. Cure spells.
Clerics get access to magic from the gods. They gods believe a clerics should heal the faithful. Cure spells.
Druids get access via nature. Nature can create as well as destroy. Cure spells.
Paladin and Rangers draw on the same power of clerics and druids. Cure spells.
Sorcerers draw on inborn magic, but can't focus the planar energy needed to touch the positive energy plane. No cures.
Warlocks draw on dark, negative energy unconcerned with such things. No cures.
Wizards study a rigid selection of spells, that like sorcerers can't touch the primal forces of creation (the words, gods, or natural force) so No cures.

Ok
 

Aribar

First Post
I'm genuinely curious... Has whether a spell itself was arcane or divine come up in anyone's game? I know whether the -caster- draws from arcane or divine sources matters for some 3E prestige classes and stuff, but has it ever been needed to know if that Light spell was divine or arcane? My group runs mostly homebrew stuff so it's never mattered for us beyond character fluff.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Thanks [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], thats about how I look at it too.
[MENTION=6777974]Aribar[/MENTION], well in game there have been several quests for "divine" magic that could do things to resolve the plot, cure disease, raise dead, etc. So in my campaigns there has been the two sides of magic, with some casters hitting the gray area.

Another example was a wizard that could heal, but he had to use life transference or necromancy spells to do it. So he was looked at very suspiciously. Cause ALL the peasants KNOW that healing comes from the gods..."duh" says the peasant.

Out of game, it was likely so that the "roles" wouldn't be infringed upon. In much literature, especially today and in video games, people may specialize but there isn't normally such a divide. In some of the final Fantasy games I created Blaster/Healers.

I agree that there is no longer any rule dividing them as such (other than spell lists). I will likely keep them kinda separate however, much like Remathilis says up thread.


Of course in 5e, my white wizard society will have the magic initiate feat, instead of me arbitrarily putting "cure" spells on their spell list like I did in 1e.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
P.S. I remember a plot from way back where a wizard's dispell magic would not work on an evil divine barrier. Not sure ether that was in a book or homebrew.

Was still fun.
 


Ruzak

First Post
I've always been a big fan of the arcane/divine separation. It makes each seem more magical, and less like a list of technological abilities anyone can use with the right training. I didn't notice how absent the divide was in 5e until this thread.
 


I've always been a big fan of the arcane/divine separation. It makes each seem more magical, and less like a list of technological abilities anyone can use with the right training. I didn't notice how absent the divide was in 5e until this thread.

I like diffrences when they mean something... but once you take away the meaning it just falls apart.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top