Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3331308" data-attributes="member: 307">But that doesn't matter. You've already said that "villagers can tell who casts arcane and who casts divine spells based on the effects they produce". And your guy: can't. produce. many. divine. effects.Hence, by your reasoning, he cannot be regarded as a divine caster by the populace.But that's not your reasoning. Your reasoning, such as it is, appears to be: if you write "divine caster" on your character sheet, you are a divine caster; if you writye "arcane caster" on your character sheet you are an arcane caster. And everyone can tell the difference by sight, because they can see the glowing letters floating over your hear that indicate you as one or the other.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.And? He cannot cast atonement, like about 99% of priests who never reach that level. Paladins are divine casters - they are never able to cast atonement. Rangers are divine casters - they are never able to cast atonement. Adepts are divine catser - they are never able to cast atonement[/]i. No cleric or druid of less than 9th level can cast atonement. Which means the vast majority of "priests" (which are defined, apparently, as divine casters) are completely unable to cast atonement.Which means the ability to cast atonement should be so rare that whether your character can or not cannot be regarded as any kind of realistic litmus test.And? 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.In 3e, they gave you a variety of abilities to cover this. First off, they gave you druids, who are nature oriented divine casters. Second, they gave elemental domains for clerics, allowing clerics to turn and rebuke elemental creatures. Third, they gave flexible multiclassing, to allow for combinations to accomplish the mechanics you want.It is not the game's fault that you choose not to use the tools available to model the character you want.The sacred exorcist presitge class does exactly that. Not everything is always in the core books.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.  Well then, the fact that he cannot cast a spell that doesn't exist in 3e should not be a problem. That, coupled with the fact that there is substantial overlap between the cleric orison list and the bard and sorcerer/wizard cantrip lists pretty much means that most "arcane" casters can replicate most of the minor spells of "priests".</blockquote>

Verification