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: 3353974" data-attributes="member: 307">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.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.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.So is a bard's. How is the bard markedly different from your character in this regard?It is on the sorcerer's spell list too, listed under limited wish.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.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.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.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, 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.The list of spells that meet the criteria you describe consists of exactly zero spells. Next argument.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?Play a character that does not have turning as part of its package. That's been suggested about twenty times in this thread.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.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.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.Then don't use a game that uses Vancian magic.Problem solved.That was easy.</blockquote>

Verification