Sorry I've been absent for so long again- between a couple of weddings and a night at Cirque Du Soleil, I've had to let my social computer time slide!
That said, this will probably be the last response to this thread I make- its plain to me that much of the dichotomy here is in fundamental perceptions of the nature of religion and connections to the divine as modeled in D&D that aren't going to change with internet discussion- we'll just have to agree to disagree. Continue on if y'all wish.
And your guy: can't. produce. many. divine. effects.
You're. Missing. The. Point.
He can produce enough- healing, curatives and reconciliatory powers unique to divine casters are within his repetoir.
It isn't the amount of
purely divine spells you can cast, so long as the number is greater than zero. Like I said- the assertion that even villagers could distinguish between divine and arcane magical effects goes back to 1st Ed arguments raised by the publication of the Barbarian in the original Unearthed Arcana. Even then, there were Dual classed and multiclassed arcane/divine casters, so there were characters who muddied the waters.
From the 1st Ed UA:
Barbarians in general detest magic and those who use it. They will, at low levels of experience, refuse to employ any sort of magic items if they recognize it as such. They will often seek to destroy magic items...While magic-users will be shunned initially, and always viewed with suspicion, clerical spells of the type used by shamans and witch doctors are not so viewed, though high-level clerical spells are suspect. UA p19
Let it be noted that while the class has the ability to detect magic (except illusion/phantasm), the class delivers no more ability to distinguish between arcane and shamanistic magic than any other PC. Barbarians do so by using their rational minds, the same as any other being, including commoners.
But it is a universal power among divine casters in D&D. And your guy doesn't have the ability that "real" clerics do. Hence, he cannot be regarded as a divine caster by the populace.
Is his healing limited? Sure- but he has it. So is a low-level cleric's. So is an Evil cleric's. A druid's is limited, but in different ways.
He cannot cast atonement...
Its on his list of spells, under the "All" category.
How does going to catholic school have anything to do with the arcane/divine magic split? Are you saying that russo-finnish myth somehow incorporates judeo-christian interpretations of "holy" miracles as opposed to wicked magic? Are all arcane casters regarded as being in league with the devil?
and
Comparative theology should lead you to the realization that the distinction between "good" divine magic and "evil" other types of magic is primarily a christian meme, and for most religions, magic was simply magic
The point was that I (and others) had a shared education in comparative religions dating back to high-school- the theology courses there wern't all about Catholicism, but Catholocism in comparison to other world religions, both live and dead. I, in particular, continued that in a broader context in college.
As for the arcane casters being in league with the devil, I again return to the 1st Ed UA- that a connection between arcane magic (actually, any magic performed by a non-shaman or someone recognized as such) and evil is one that has been one of the background beliefs that a character
might have.
You can find distinctions between good & bad magic in more than just the Judeo-Christian tradition. Modern Wicca usually looks at most magic as a tool, and distinguishes between usage than inherent goodness or evil, but that is not an absolute viewpoint. Similar distinctions exist in many old animist traditions like Voudoun, Native American and African faith traditions. In any of those, there are some kinds of magic that are viewed as inherently evil, such as any magic that is intended to overpower someone's free will, or that seeks to overturn the laws of nature, like exercising coercive power over the spirits or bodies of the dead.
The sacred exorcist presitge class does exactly that. Not everything is always in the core books.
(And other comments about things that are not core.)
One of my original points from the other thread- that not every archetype is supported by Core D&D- was countered in that other thread and led to the creation of this one.
And, if you'll look back at the post to which you're responding- I specifically stated that these were archetypes not supported by Core. IOW, I have no argument with you there- it is others who have stated that you can do any PC concept with just the Core rules, not me.
Pinnochio is a Small animated object, or possibly a downsized golem.
No, Pinnochio is a
living (sentient and free-willed) construct with similarities to a small, wood golem. I believe that it isn't until the Warforged were published that a living, sentient, free-willed construct PC was allowed- IOW, not a universally playable concept until books other than the Core existed.
Your arguments still give no reason whatsoever why the arcane/divine split is anything of consequence. As a matter of fact, with every post you make, you destroy your own arguments. You said that people can tell who is an who is not a divine caster by observing the effects of their spells and then rattling off a list of spells. First off, the list of spells was mostly spells that overlapped the arcane spell lists, which made your point spurious to begin with. Now, you assert that not being able to cast those spells is not an impediment to being considered a priest, because of spell level issues.
So which is it? Is being able to cast certain divine spells necessary or not? You are trying to argue both sides here, and it is just making your arguments seem ludicrous.
That my list of spells was not comprehensive nor perfectly exclusive is immaterial- the fact remains that there are divine spells that do not exist on any arcane caster's list (and vice versa). Uniquely divine spells exist because they serve the purposes of the divine and their flock.
A divine being who found an unassociated arcane spellcaster trying to cast a researched version of Attonement (which
is permissable under the Core rules) would probably be a target of that being's wrath. Why? Because that caster is circumnavigating the being's control over who is a member in good faith & standing of his religion.
The core books give the basic mechanics. However, the core books give lots of flexibility by allowing for very flexible multiclassing. You just don't want to use the tools available.
There is no flexibility in the
Core rules regarding Turning, other than the
expansion of it by certain domains or Feats. Restricting it or changing its focus entirely isn't within that ruleset.
A bard, a bard/druid, or a bard/ranger has all of the abilities you claim are necessary to execute your concept. But because you don't get to write "cleric" in your sheet, you don't want to use those options. And you don't want to use the options for wholly arbitrary and metagame reasons.
Apparently, you've missed the several posts where I admitted that the 3.x Druid dropped aspects that I felt were wholly against the concept and that it was actually a decent fit. Improve your reading skills, please.
Re: Size changes, you said:
Yes you can, and yes there is. It is even in the SRD.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improving...m#sizeIncreases.
I've seen and I'm even currently using those charts (originally in the MM) to design aspects of my new campaign.
A size change upwards to Large or larger is listed as +1. Is that absolute or is it per size change? It matters, don't you think?
Nowhere in those rules does it say
precisely what a downward size change will do for a creature's ECL. A normally Colossal Red Dragon reduced to the size of an insect may lose melee power, but RAW, its spellpower, HD, and breath weapons are unaffected- a rude surprise to someone thinking he's swatting a pesky fly.
The charts don't even address changes in movement rates...nor do the Size rules in the Combat or movement rules in the Adventuring sections.
Overall, the language is imprecise and open to interpretation and it shouldn't be.
Re: Polearms, you said:
Use the improvised weapon rules.
I shouldn't have to- those weapons were designed as improvements upon the quarterstaff- a double weapon- and using the butt end of all but the largest of them is no more difficult than using the end with the hunk of shaped metal.
Instead, the improvised weapon rules impose a fairly severe penalty assuming that it also invokes the normal 2 weapon fighting penalties (you and your DM may not- ours? it varies).
Other sources let you use a Feat to cut that penalty down significantly.
If, OTOH, the weapon is already treated as a double weapon, no feat need be burned, no improvised weapon penalty need be applied.
***
One last point about animist magic: it is very poorly modeled by the Vancian system.
Vancian magic is very dependable, very cause & effect. You memorize the spell, you cast the spell. If it doesn't work, its usually because the target was either invalid or defended in some way against your magic.
In contrast, Animist magic (both in RW faiths and in fiction- see Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle) has an inherent uncertainty to it. Until the caster reaches the pinnacle of power, he does not so much command the spirits to do his bidding, he
asks for their help. They can refuse to give it, and often do, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, sacrifices, bargains and pacts with the spirits can alter the odds, but seldom to the point of certainty.
To illustrate, a Vancian caster who casts "Create Food & Water" or its equivalent will get what he asked for- "Pop!" and there it is.
An animist caster attempting to use his magic to get food & water would ask nature spirits to either guide him to water & food, or possibly even surrender their own lives to provide him sustenance. Understandibly, some spirits might not want to direct the animist supplicant to their hidden stream, or die so that he could live. In such cases the spell would simply not work, or its effects would be greatly reduced- the water is a small puddle, the food, a few small berries- just enough to fend off the worst effects of starvation.
Summoning spells would be affected similarly- while the Vancian caster really only has to worry that he's not in an Anti-magic zone, an animist caster has to wonder if he is on good enough terms with the local fauna or otherplanar allies that they'd respond to his call and show up.
More to the point, it's not RAW but using the butt end of any weapon is generally 1d4 or 1d6 damage (as evidenced by other gaming supplements, especially d20 Modern and using a rifle butt as a weapon), plus you take the -4 for using an improvised weapon.
