Are they still going to retain the divine/arcane distinction? Why?

[Emirikol]

Are they still going to retain the divine/arcane distinction? Doesn't this seem a little like "alignments" in terms of actual flavor necessity? Or is it just so that there can be a "middleman" of a god doling out supposed spells..Really? The D&D universe needs gods doling out spells to clerics who are healing nonbelievers? Isn't magic just magic except that Divine magic is somehow polluted or lessened by a someone begging for it? This may sound harsh but isn't there then "begged" magic and "magic" (as a wizard once said). DO gods simply exist to dole out spells in the D&D universe?

I dunno, am I rubbing against the sacred cow here or shouldn't magic simply be magic?

jh
P.s. the same goes for psionics

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I can't imagine a more sacred cow than that. Besides, we already know there will be three "power sources", arcane/divine/martial. That distinction's definitely sticking around.

 

[Voss]

OK... tone issues aside, I find the distinction between magical styles a useful and flavorful thing. Having different styles (significant styles, not just categorization of spells) of magic is a lot more interesting than here is a magic man. He can do magic things. Yay.

So you have the cleric, who intercedes with divine beings for magical aid.
The wizard, who has learned to shape magical forces
The sorcerer, who is flinging his own energy about
and the warlock, who is making deals for magical power.

Now, to me, these different approaches should lead to magic that is distinct from other types of magic. Someone who is shaping forces based on a scholarly understanding isn't going to do things the same way (or produce the same effect) as someone who is asking gods (or nature or whatever) to do something. Everyone doing the same thing the same way is just... dull.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Gods grant spells so they can influence the lives of mortals on the material plane.

D&D gods, its important to remember are neither all powerful nor all knowing.

 

[Aldarc]

Well I am still skeptical about the necessity of these distinctions, I also do not think that it will be to hard to explain away the perceptions of these differences such that yes magic is magic, but how it is obtained is very different which affects what the channeler is able to do with it. So you could easily vary the meaning of the sources such that the arcane source-user pulls its magical essence from the astral planes. And the divine source-user may not even pull its magic from gods or extraplanar beings but from the life and death of the material plane and from the self's connection with their surroundings.

 

[Mercule]

My hope is that, not only do they keep the divide, they make it meaningful. What's the point of dividing arcane from divine if the two use the exact same VSM components, etc. There is a lot more justification to psionics sharing a mechanic with either divine (the god within) or arcane (silly words, vs. force of will) than there is for the two to share anything.

From a flavor standpoint, I'd love to see the divide continue. The ranger should go arcane, though. The bard could go either way.

 

[Li Shenron]

My hope is that, not only do they keep the divide, they make it meaningful.

They could start by eliminating the concept of a "God(dess) of Magic". Then do the same for druidic magic and eliminate any "God(dess) of Nature".

But it's so easy to have a god of magic and a god of nature, that no designer would ever have the guts for such a choice.