Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7966351" data-attributes="member: 18">I'm not really sure what you're saying here. You don't seem to be disagreeing. My focus is on the implications of taking an approach where Clerics only have their abilities "on loan" from the deity, and where the deity constantly monitors the Cleric, and could take those abilities away at any moment, should the Cleric fail to uphold the tenets of the faith. You can play it more loosely, but that easily falls into apparent inconsistency, and that inconsistency will lead to either further elaboration on how the whole thing works (which binds you in future), or potential confusion or even resentment at what appears to be arbitrary behaviour. Neither of which is ideal.It's a viable approach, even an attractive one, but it's an approach that has consequences, which I think are worth pointing out when it is suggested.It binds both the PCs, and the DM, and quite tightly.I did raise the objection that for a long time there's only been a weak or no distinction between Arcane and Divine spells/magic. It's right there at the end of my post. I don't think I edited it in - it should be visible. I think that's the biggest issue with attempting to differentiate them now. Since 2E, the differences have been narrowing sharply. 2E particularly featured a lot of Speciality Priests and kits and so on where people could cast a Wizard spell or the like "as a Priest spell", right from the get-go too, with 1990's Forgotten Realms Adventures featuring at least one, possibly two or three Speciality Priests who could outright cast Wizard spells. Later 2E material did even more of this. And 3E outright made it so you had Bards casting Cure Light Wounds (shocking to some at the time) and so on.I think the only useful distinction is in the origin of the abilities, not how the impact the world (and that includes Psionics which are rendered as spells - if they are they should be subject to MR and the spell Anti-Magic Field and so on).</blockquote>

Verification