D&D 5E Differentiating Arcane and Divine Magic.

[Undrave]

Primal magic in D&D is magic from natural spirits, nature's divinity, or magic that is filtered through nature. It only makes sense in settings where youcan get magic by communing with nature and not with a nature god themselves.

That's why "druids and rangers getting magic from nature gods" makes no sense in D&D. If you get magic from a nature god, you are a nature cleric.

However in some setting, primal magic is divine magic. This is the "The earth is divine" or "Mother Nature is a divine but different" or "Silvanus, Mielikki, and Eldath do things different sometimes".

That's the trouble with only sticking to 2 magic sources in the PHB.

I much preferred the 4e fluff on Primal magic and the Primal Spirits and how it tied into the origin of the Prime Material plane!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Primal magic in D&D is magic from natural spirits, nature's divinity, or magic that is filtered through nature. It only makes sense in settings where youcan get magic by communing with nature and not with a nature god themselves.

That's why "druids and rangers getting magic from nature gods" makes no sense in D&D. If you get magic from a nature god, you are a nature cleric.

However in some setting, primal magic is divine magic. This is the "The earth is divine" or "Mother Nature is a divine but different" or "Silvanus, Mielikki, and Eldath do things different sometimes".

That's the trouble with only sticking to 2 magic sources in the PHB.

So, what is the difference between a nature cleric and a warlock of the archfey or the great old one whose patron has power over nature? It is a pointless and needless distinction that gives rise to threads such as these.

(bold added)

No, that is the trouble with sticking to ANY magic sources. It is just there, how you get it and where it comes from is nothing but fluff and flavor.

If you want to play a nature caster (cleric, druid, whatever...) the just select your spells to reflect it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you keep bringing it up, you've really gotta work on it, you know.

There is nothing to work on really. It is done. Players simply have to be willing to change the mindset about spells and which class they are linked to. In case you don't remember when we were working on the "sameyness" thread:

Bards: Enchantment (Charm) - 40 spells
Cleric: Conjuration (Create) - 78 spells
Druid: Transmutation (Change) - 93 spells
Paladin: Abjuration (Protect) - 52 spells
Ranger: Divination (Find) - 32 spells
Sorcerer: Illusion (Deceive) - 31 spells
Warlock: Necromancy (Delve) - 36 spells
Wizard: Evocation (Manifest) - 100 spells

 

[dave2008]

No, that is the trouble with sticking to ANY magic sources. It is just there, how you get it and where it comes from is nothing but fluff and flavor.

That is true in 5e, but it doesn't have to be. If you wanted divine to be different from arcane to be different from primal you could wrap that in different fluff and mechanics if you wanted.

Personally, I am fine with magic all being the same source, with just different way to use/access it. Conversely, I also think it is interesting if they are different, but then they really should be different.

 

[Gadget]

Well, I'm also nostalgic about the differentiation between "divine" and "arcane" magic in D&D. While I would not want to return to the AD&D days, I kind of miss the fact that spellcasters felt different from each other (2e specialty priests notwithstanding). This was largely accomplished by separate spell lists, though diseprate class abilities played a role as well. Clerics didn't need 9th level spells when their martial might was such that they could hold their own in combat and enhance themselves in days when buff spell were not so prominant and concentration was not around. Arguably, some of those 7th level spells were on par with 8th & 9th level spells in some ways.

But I digress. I can see why the distinction has become largely meaningless, and classes can raid each other's spell lists in so many different ways that differentation on that score has decreased dramatically. I could still argue that "divine" magic contains elements of reverence, worship, respect--or at least belief in following the tenants of or related to--the source of the power. It could equally apply to clerics (obviously diety), druids(nature and reverence for it), Rangers (a healthy respect, understanding and bond with nature), and Paladins (deity or tenets of a code or Oath). Even monks can usually fall into one of those categories.

Whereas "Arcane" magic can be something that is either a gift (bloodline, exposure to magical whatever, latent inner power), something that can be acquired through principles of study, scholarship, etc., or finding secrets to "cheat" and make a pact with a powerful being to teach you further secrets and loan you some power.

Having said that I agree that beyond the flavor, much of the distinction is moot at this point. One thing that they all have in common is that they end up (mostly) casting a spell with a spell slot and level, which usually can be counterspelled, dispelled, fails in an anti-magic field. One thing that bothers me about the hue & cry with psionics is that there seems to be a desire by some to have a whole separate system added on that forgoes or circumvents much of that. While the other classes have to make due with sharing the same basic spell system. Now to be fair, some just want a separate base class that could perhaps share much of the magic system with the other classes.

 

[Minigiant]

I much preferred the 4e fluff on Primal magic and the Primal Spirits and how it tied into the origin of the Prime Material plane!

4e Dawn War is one of my favorite pantheon systems because it actually delved in the actual cosmology and how they affect classes.

Another way to do Primal is to have it come from another pantheon like the Vanir or the Primordials.

A cool way to divide it is

Primal: Magic from Uranus or Gaia
Elemental: Magic from the Titans
Divine: Magic from the Olympians
Arcane: Magic from residual loose magic
Psionic: Magic from Mortals

So, what is the difference between a nature cleric and a warlock of the archfey or the great old one whose patron has power over nature? It is a pointless and needless distinction that gives rise to threads such as these.

The nature cleric has access to healing magic.
The archfey and GOO warlock have charms enchantments and illusions.

In the D&D sense, the warlock of nature gets magic from a being of Divine rank of 0 or no Divine rank. They can't grant spells. They can only make you magical by turning you into a warlock. Hercules can't give you cure wounds. His father Zeus can.

 

[Ashrym]

"Divine" magic and "Arcane" magic are stupid separations that make absolutely no sense with the number and types of classes we have in 5E. There, I said it.

What we should really be talking about here is simply "Cleric" magic, and "Wizard" magic. That's it. Why? Because none of the other classes do anything that makes them fit into either the "divine" or "arcane" divisions, and those that try to do so have to make stuff up to put them in.

Neither Druid nor Ranger spells are "divine", because neither of them come from any gods. They come from what... nature and the earth itself? That's not "divine". In fact, they're both closer to "Arcane", because "Arcane" is just the magic in the air, or "The Weave" or "The Force" or whatever it is on the Prime plane people tap into. So what's the difference between the magic in the air and the magic in nature? Damned if I know.

Similarly... Warlocks are NOT "Arcane". They are given their magical power from extraplanar entities the same way Cleric are given theirs (other than bargaining for it as opposed to working for it). Yes, the clerics entities are "gods" and the warlocks are "archdevils" or "archfey" or whatever... but what is ostensibly the difference between those groups? Very little if you ask me (especially if you are talking about sheer power). So Warlocks are "divine" casters if anything-- much moreso than Druids are-- especially for the so-called "Celestial" patrons! Warlocks bargain for their power from the immediate underlings of the gods, and yet somehow their magic is still supposed to be "Arcane" in nature? Really?

And what about Bards? Where do they fall? Are they "divine"? Apparently not. Are they "Arcane"? Doesn't seem so (if the pack of Arcane Spell Cards that WotC released through Gale Force 9 had anything to say about it.) So what kind of magic do Bards produce? What's the point of having two categories if there's a whole bunch that don't fit in either and you don't bother placing them anywhere else?

None of the divisions of types of magic make any sense whatsoever, so using them I feel is ridiculous. There is just "Magic". And "magic" is anything supernatural that normal people cannot do-- whether that be spells, or invocations, or ki, or metamagic, or channeling divinity, or bardic inspiration, or divine smite, or wildshaping, or beast mastery, or any of that stuff. It's all magic. And everyone gains magic and uses magic in their own particular way. No categorization required or necessary.

The two separations per the PHB indicate direct access to magic versus an intermediary connection to magic. From what I read in the sidebar it is just one magic and the classes have different ways of applying it.

I'm more a fan of just calling it cleric magic or bard magic or wizard magic etc too. Additional labelling does nothing but add additional labels for the sake of adding additional labels.

I'll comment on the cleric vs warlock, however. The rules for arcane vs divine means clerics need that connection to access the weave. Warlocks do not, which is why it's arcane. I interpret that to mean the patronage requires a one-time or irregular rituals in the leveling up and learning process for warlocks that permanently empowers the warlock to use magic directly where the clerics do not have that same option.

Warlocks using an arcane focus instead of a holy symbol reinforces that distinction.

It's easy enough to rationalize based on the way arcane and divine magic is described. The spells aren't actually arcane or divine but the manipulation process is. It's still unnecessary but seems to be a legacy inclusion.

FWIW, the sidebar on PHB pg 205 states that Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Bards use arcane magic. Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers use divine magic.

Although, personally, I've always liked the idea that there is just magic. That opens up priests who don't receive their power from a divine entity, but rather are simply learned (or gifted) men and women. I think that would offer some interesting potential for adventures (a priest who is creating 'miracles' - is he a con artist or is this the work of an unknown entity?).

That's an important consideration for how Eberron is handled given the "gods don't interfere" concept. Gods who may or may not exist and do not communicate with followers or directly grant magic but gods are granting magic? I call "nuh-uh", lol.

Heh heh... well, it's still dumb, because there is literally nothing about druid magic that is any more "divine" than warlock magic, and in fact the opposite is true.

That page also says nothing whatsoever about Monk magic (Four Elements). I guess we're supposed to assume they are divine as well... but seeing as how there's like little to no difference between an air-based Monk and a Storm Sorcerer (they are both drawing energy from the air around them to create their effects), calling those Monks divine makes no sense either.

When Clerics and Wizards were the only thing in the game... having divine and arcane magic as descriptors made sense. But not anymore. Not in 5E.

Based on how "The Magic of Ki" is described monks would be arcane casters when casting spells because they are using ki to power it. The actual spells they access follows the arcane caster style as well. Or a person can stick with a class as the type of magic (which makes more sense, I agree).

Bards are not actually listed as arcane casters in the bard class description either even though divine and arcane reference exist in the classes for clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. Bard magic gets described as hidden magic and the cannot use an arcane spell focus. But they still get included with arcane casters but the only thing that really shows that is the sidebar including them in that list.

What I find interesting is if a DM enforces the old school "divine casters cut off from their divine link cannot recover spell slots" then clerics, druids, and rangers suck getting into planar travel compared to artificers, bards, and divine souls regardless of a lot of shared spells available.

Personally, I think arcane vs divine labels (and others) is an unnecessary addition that adds complexity if it ever gets used beyond fluff. I agree with your assessment.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let me share a secret with you. I'm the DM. I control reality. I'm not limited.

Sure, but if you try and do this in a non-homebrew setting, you're going to look pretty silly/arbitrary. In a homebrew setting, sure your "celestial bureaucracy" can be completely inconsistent and obfuscatory and so on.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's an important consideration for how Eberron is handled given the "gods don't interfere" concept. Gods who may or may not exist and do not communicate with followers or directly grant magic but gods are granting magic? I call "nuh-uh", lol.

Whereas this is one of my favorite aspects of Eberron.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

One thing I did in AD&D and I have considered for 5E is allowing divine casters (Cleric, Druid, and Paladin) to not have to prepare spells at all. You cast them at will as when you need them your deity, etc. grants them then. It worked well for AD&D and definitely made it feel different from Magic-Users.

My groups did the "everyone casts their spells like sorcerers do" before sorcerers were added to the game. We mostly hated the Vancian "forget your spell after casting" garbage.