Dannyalcatraz said:
You're. Missing. The. Point.
He can produce enough- healing, curatives and reconciliatory powers unique to divine casters are within his repetoir.[/i]
Of course, that's not what you said earlier.
And it begs the question - bards, for example, can cast a variety of curative spells, and some restoratives. Sorcerers and wizards can cast a bunch of similar spells (not healing though). But somehow, the fact that these cure spells are "arcane" is a big deal.
Your reasoning remains entirely inconsistent, and to a large degree, spurious.
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.
How do the villagers tell that an
identical spell cast by a bard is arcane, while the same spell cast by a cleric is divine? Try to answer this: a bard and cleric both cast
cure light wounds on a villager. How does the villager tell that one is arcane and one is divine?
Sure, in the 1e UA, somehow, barbarians had the ability to sense the difference. But we are not talking about 1e barbarians. We are talking about everyone else. And even if 1e barbarians had the ability to "sniff" magic types by some (entirely unexplained) method, villagers and townsfolk clearly did not. So how do
they tell the difference? Please explain this using actual mechanics and something other than "they can tell the difference by the difference mechanical results the spells produce" because, for many many spells, they simply cannot.
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.
How?
A wizard casts
true seeing. A cleric cast
true seeing. How do they tell the difference? What part of their "rational mind" tells the commoner the difference?
A sorcerer casts
burning hands. A cleric with the Fire domain casts
burning hands. How do the common-folk tell the difference?
A wizard casts
gaseous form. A cleric with the Air domain casts
gaseous form. How do you tell the difference by untrained observation?
I could go on for more than a hundred spells in this way. Your arguments remain entirely unconvincing on this score.
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.
So is a bard's. How is the bard markedly different from your character in this regard?
Its on his list of spells, under the "All" category.
It is on the sorcerer's spell list too, listed under
limited wish.
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.
And? This "point" that you seem to think is somehow relevant seems to me to be entirely a non sequitur. Then again, very few of your other arguments in this thread seem to have much weight.
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.
And now the limitation is "shaman's recognized as such"? So, even divine magic, if it is not the "right" divine magic, is suspect? How does he tell
that difference? Of course, now your earlier arguments about being able to tell arcane from divine magic stop making any sense, since that's not what he's doing; what he's doing now is deferring to authority as to who is correctly recognized as "right". And that means that if authority were to recognize spells cast by, say, bards, as being divinely inspired, then the barbarian wouldn't have a problem.
Which means the problem isn't the arcane/divine split, as you have said. It is just that you don't want to write "bard" down on your character sheet.
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.
However, none of them divide magic into "arcane" magic and "divine" magic. Which makes this entire line of argument totally irrelevant and beside the point.
(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.
Those things that I said to use non-core items to emulate
are not archetypes. They are corner cases. Every thime you try to argue something, your arguments start to make less sense.
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.
No, he is not alive. That's the point. He is an awakened animated object. There are rules for that sort of thing in the core books.
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.
The list of spells that meet the criteria you describe consists of exactly zero spells. Next argument.
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.
An entirely non-rule issue, and one that has
nothing] to do with whether a spell is arcane or divine. Suppose an arcane caster acted as part of a priesthood, and handed out
atonement's exactly in accord with the divine personages rules and edicts. Explain why the divine being would be offended?
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.
Play a character that does not have turning as part of its package. That's been suggested about twenty times in this thread.
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.
So, in other words, the 3e rule set
does support the type of character you said it could not. And using the core rules too. So, basically, your entire argument is moot.
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.
Yet, it is in the core rules. Sure, the rules may not be exatly what
you want, but they are there. They address the issue. And they can be used to do exactly what you said they could not do. Your complaint was revealed as unfounded. That you don't like the tool the rules give you is not the issue. The fact remaisn that they give you a perfectly good tool to do what you ask them to do.
Re: Polearms, you said:
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.
Once again, the fact that you don't like the rule does not mean that the rules don't address the issue. They do. Your complaint concerning the lack of completeness in the rules is, once again, shown to be unfounded.
One last point about animist magic: it is very poorly modeled by the Vancian system.
Then don't use a game that uses Vancian magic.
Problem solved.
That was easy.
