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: 3354683" data-attributes="member: 307">And in that case, the ECL you came up with is wrong, by the core rules. Really, if you don't like the result given by the core rules, that's fine. But it doesn't mean that the core rules don't address the issue. They clearly do. There is a method for determining the ECL of any creature in the books. You don't like the results it gives, which is fine by me. But it doesn't mean that the rules aren't there.In what way is it different to these all important commoner and barbarian observers?And that's not the question I asked. I asked why a wizard, acting as a member of the faith, in accord with the precepts of the faith, used the spell (either by casting limited wish or researching an arcane version of the spell), would be a problem? It is no different than a cleric casting the same spell - the cleric doesn't have to double check with his deity before actually casting the spell, and could potentially misuse the spell just as easily once he has it prepared.Or, like a cardinal who happens to be a wizard telling another cardinal who happens to be a cleric that the Knights Templar had been rehabilitated. Your analogy doesn't match my hypothetical.What are "uniquely divine spells"? Which ones are critical here? Since you don't seem to be able to define any except possibly atonement. Just about every other spell you have brought up is on an arcane spell list, and can be cast by an arcane caster. Are you trying to argue that no one knows who is an arcane caster, and who is a divine caster until the caster reaches 9th level and has to deal with a very rarely occuring situation (that most commoners probably would never see in their lifetimes anyway)?Your argument that a bard "could not" be considered a priest was based on the idea that everyone would "know" he was not a divine caster, and that would disqualify him. But your evidence for this is entirely unconvincing. Explain again how commoners would "know" this and thus not accept such a priest if the priesthood was okay with it.I find it funny that "barbarians" and "reasoned thought" are being conjoined. But anyway, you still haven't shown how this would come about. Suppose you have an arcane caster who spends his time casting spells that cross over between the various arcane and divine lists, and possibly casting spells that appear on various domain lists (and are thus castable by some divine casters). How does anyone tell he is not a divine caster?Like a bard. Again, explain how a bard is a bad fit here?The druid (and bard) do a much better job of emulating the source material you claim to be inspired by than your cleric mish-mash.Really? Which of your extraordinarily rare character types do you claim are "archetypes"? The perpetually invisible guy (name more than one example in literature)? The "good" vampire? The intelligent puppet (name more than one example in literature)?I suppose intelligent animals might, but those are handled perfectly well by the core rules, so your complaint in that regard is entirely unfounded.Perhaps you missed that I was talking about a distinction between good divine magic and evil arcane magic from some other source. I said so explicitly in the post you responded to. Hence, though there is a concept of "good" magic, the idea that "good" magic is "divine" magic is found only in the traditions of Judeo-Christian (and to some extent, Islamic) thought. Finnish, Russian, Egyptian, Greek, and other mythic traditions make no such distinction. Magic is magic, and is evil or good without reference to its source. Making a big deal out of the D&D arcane/divine split is simply counter to the source material you claim to be using to inspire your example character.</blockquote>

Verification