Spelljammer Dark Sun confirmed? Or, the mysterious case of the dissappearing Spelljammer article...

[Parmandur]

They are bound unless you have a specific exception. A bard cannot pick up a holy symbol and use it as a focus for the cure wounds spell he got. He has to use an arcane focus, since it is an arcane spell for him.

No, it is a Bard Spell for him. And there is nothing in the Spell that would make it not normally a Bard Spell (an Arcane category), just the Bard Spell list.

The grouping into Arcane and Divine is historical and influences the contents of tjode Spell lists, but it's not actually present in the Spell rules.

That is far weaker than alignment, even, because at least Alighment is on character sheets.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it is a Bard Spell for him. And there is nothing in the Spell that would make it not normally a Bard Spell (an Arcane category), just the Bard Spell list.

Which means it requires an arcane focus, not a divine one.

The grouping into Arcane and Divine is historical and influences the contents of tjode Spell lists, but it's not actually present in the Spell rules.

This doesn't matter. If they were in the spell rules themselves, the categories would be mechanically strong, not mechanically weak.

That is far weaker than alignment, even, because at least Alighment is on character sheets.

So are foci. You write them down on your sheet. And it's not far weaker than alignment. Alignment only has a few artifacts that you will never find that interact with it. The magical categories have foci to interact with it, and those are very common. So really, it's stronger than alignment is, though still weak is hell.

 

[Synthil]

Bards can only use instruments as foci (and subclass specific additions). The can't use wands etc. Furthermore, druids can't use holy symbols either. So are they not divine casters? Further furthermore, everyone can use a component pouch. So the source of magic doesn't matter if you use specific components. And the restriction on foci is based on class not on source of magic. That's why the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster can't use foci despite borrowing the exact same arcane magic as the wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

Bards can only use instruments as foci (and subclass specific additions). The can't use wands etc.

"You can use a musical instrument (see chapter 5, "Equipment") as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells."

The instrument serves as an arcane focus, just like the ones that wizards, sorcerers and warlocks use. It doesn't matter if they can use the other kind. They still have an arcane focus to interact with the arcane magic category.

Furthermore, druids can't use holy symbols either. So are they not divine casters?

"You can use a druidic focus (see chapter 5, "Equipment") as a spellcasting focus for your druid spells."

They use a different divine focus than a holy symbol to interact with the divine magic category.

Further furthermore, everyone can use a component pouch.

Because........................................................................a focus substitutes for components! If you have the component, you don't as a wizard need an arcane focus to interact with the arcane magic category. And this isn't relevant, since regardless of the existence of components, there are still mechanical rules involving foci and the categories of magic. Components cannot erase that.

And the restriction on foci is based on class not on source of magic. That's why the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster can't use foci despite borrowing the exact same arcane magic as the wizard.

Regardless of where the restriction is, it still interacts with the specific category of magic that class uses and no other. If the categories did not exist, any class that can use a focus would be able to use any focus to do it. A wizard could use a holy symbol, a warlock a druid focus, and a druid a wand. That they need a specific focus that only interacts with their category of magic is proof beyond doubt that the categories do exist. Mechanical interactions do not lie.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That's not what I asked. Do we really need a levels 1-20 psionicist class?

I'm perfectly happy with my kalishtar psi knight.

Yes, for Darksun. It's the risk free path compared to magic, it is supposed to be limited. Because in Darksun, magic needs to slowly KILL you or turn you evil. Not that WOTC has the guts to dare tell players no, so doubtless Darksun preserving will all be fluff with no mechanical drawbacks.

 

[vecna00]

Yes, for Darksun. It's the risk free path compared to magic, it is supposed to be limited. Because in Darksun, magic needs to slowly KILL you or turn you evil. Not that WOTC has the guts to dare tell players no, so doubtless Darksun preserving will all be fluff with no mechanical drawbacks.

Preserving never had any mechanical drawbacks. Do you have a source for that?

 

[Maxperson]

Preserving never had any mechanical drawbacks. Do you have a source for that?

Preservers needed more XP to advance in level, which is a mechanical drawback.

 

[vecna00]

Preservers needed more XP to advance in level, which is a mechanical drawback.

Which is the same amount as wizards in other settings.

ETA: Not really a disadvantage if it's functionally the same as the normal PHB wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is the same amount as wizards in other settings.

ETA: Not really a disadvantage if it's functionally the same as the normal PHB wizard.

It is in Dark Sun, because defilers needed less XP to level. Compared to defilers, preservers need more XP which is a drawback to choosing that route.

 

[vecna00]

It is in Dark Sun, because defilers needed less XP to level. Compared to defilers, preservers need more XP which is a drawback to choosing that route.

I'm going to preface this with: this is where my opinion is going to come into play. The defiler having a better XP table does not mean the preserver is at a mechanical disadvantage when they are exactly the same as a normal wizard. In my opinion, I just see that as different because just about every class had a different progression.

So I don't see that as a mechanical advantage.