How different should Arcane and Divine magic be?

[Aldarc]

On my other thread, I saw a call for a greater distinction of the mechanics and flavor between divine and arcane magic. And the more I thought about, if such separate categories of magic do exist, there really should a more defined distinction between the two.

Yes and no here: Either fold'em together to 'Magic' or split them further apart, so we have arcane 'Wizardry' and divine 'Miracleworking'.

Currently, they're far too similar and have a very similar feel - so either make'em the same or REALLY different. And with really different, I mean like Magic of Incarnum and Psionics, so you feel a difference mechanically!

Cheers, LT.

I agree with both... either get rid of the rice-paper thin excuse for a division or make them distinctly different.

I'd like for clerics to have no preparation whatsoever. When they need a miracle, they can pick and choose exactly what "spell effect" they want, and on the fly, pray for it... by making a roll based on their piety vs the spell difficulty.

They would be the ultimate in flexibility but must rely on the whim of the gods.

For religious magic to exist distinctively but not be deity-granted empowerment.

Add another vote for creating greater distinctions between arcane and divine magic...

So I am now curious as to how widespread this sentiment is and what are some possible ways that people would like to see this issue addressed in 4E.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'd be all for getting rid of the distinction, myself. If I wanted more distinction now, I'd get rid of clerical spells and replace them with rituals that granted long-duration continued effects.

In previous campaigns, I've made the distinction a simple roleplaying one: you could never multiclass an arcane casting class with a divine casting class. The differences between the two approaches were so fundamentally different and oppossed to each other that it was simply impossible. The divine caster says 'Thy will be done' and the arcane caster says 'My will be done'.

 

[Aldarc]

I'd be all for getting rid of the distinction, myself. If I wanted more distinction now, I'd get rid of clerical spells and replace them with rituals that granted long-duration continued effects.

In previous campaigns, I've made the distinction a simple roleplaying one: you could never multiclass an arcane casting class with a divine casting class. The differences between the two approaches were so fundamentally different and oppossed to each other that it was simply impossible. The divine caster says 'Thy will be done' and the arcane caster says 'My will be done'.

Yes, but until further notice the distinctions remain, so it is really a question of how one were to make the distinctions more pronounced.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm in the camp that would like to see no differentiation at all, and just have it all as 'magic'.

If there has to be differentiation, it should be really different - e.g. no spell preparation etc.

If I was to think of an off-the-cuff solution then it might be interesting to make clerics more like sorcerers - charismatic types that have a limited number of things they have faith for, but which they can do lots of times in lots of ways.

HOWEVER, until 4e comes out, I've got no idea the extent to which they intend to differentiate them - given that 'once all the vancian spells are used up, 4e casters still have 80% of their capability', the cleric 80% might prove very different from the wizard 80%...

Cheers

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm in the camp that would like to see no differentiation at all, and just have it all as 'magic'.

If there has to be differentiation, it should be really different - e.g. no spell preparation etc.

Personally, I'd like 'no distinction' more, due to my rabid love of AE.

However, if there is a distinction, I feel divine powers should feel a lot less like spells, but more like divine power invested into the cleric.

He should be closer to a walking avatar of his god, than a spell-hurling martial mage: He should get always usable powers, like a holy aura, divine protection of his body, perma-on divinations... a bit like the paladin, but minus the martial prowess and with amped up healing. And his rare 'per day' powers should be offensive (Flame Strike and other iconic deific vengeance), the re-usable powers should be protective and defensive (like disarming people, stopping combats... and people who touch the cleric should get some healing, the cleric itself should be a bit 'divine' and enemies hurting the cleric should get 'zapped')

Cheers, LT.

 

[Khuxan]

I'm pleasantly surprised that most people tend to agree with me: have no difference between arcane and divine, or a significant difference. Most jarring is the ambivalence we have now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm pleasantly surprised that most people tend to agree with me: have no difference between arcane and divine, or a significant difference. Most jarring is the ambivalence we have now.

Put me in the "me, too" camp.

Either decide that divine spells are exactly the same as arcane, except that the divine spellcaster prays while the arcane spellcaster studies a spellbook (but no further differences in spell they could use), or make it noteable different.
Not just the spell lists have to be different, the way their powers (spells or miracles) work should feel notably different.

 

[Li Shenron]

On my other thread, I saw a call for a greater distinction of the mechanics and flavor between divine and arcane magic. And the more I thought about, if such separate categories of magic do exist, there really should a more defined distinction between the two.

Either totally or not at all.

An option for totally separating them: get rid of any "god of magic", make arcane magic based on stealing away the powers from higher beings, or at otherwise make it a tool for which the gods aren't a source of but just users like the mortal wizards.

 

[fuindordm]

I could be happy with either extreme, but I don't like 3rd edition's wishy-washy approach.

If they are truly different power sources, then there should be very little overlap in the two spell lists and the requirements for casting should be different, at a minimum. Ideally, the two magic systems should have sub-mechanics to further differentiate them (e.g. piety points, spontaneous casting, random roll for deity mood on the divine side; taboos, backlash on the arcane side).

It would be nice if divine magic were safe, while arcane spells are a little more uncontrolled and risky.

If they are two paths to accessing the same power source, then there should be a unified spell list. Arcane casters should be able to get healing spells, FINALLY, and divine casters should be able to throw lightning bolts (as they do already) if the worship an appropriate deity. In this case I would hope to see some rather simple guidelines in the DMG such as:

Energy blasts: normal for Wiz, level +4 for Bard, level +3 for Cleric, level +1 for Druid.
Healing: level +2 for Wiz, level +1 for Bard and Druid, normal for Cleric.
Polymorph: normal for Wiz and Druid, level +4 for Bard, level +6 for Cleric.
Divination: level +1 for Wiz, level +2 for Bard and Druid, normal for Cleric
Enchantment: level +1 for Wiz, normal for Bard, level +2 for cleric, level+4 for Druid.

and so on...

 

[Oligopsony]

Undifferentiate the spell list, and give spells plenty of topical tags, but not "Arcane" or "Divine" ones. Then specify what tags to which a character has access by class, deity, tradition, whatever.

It would be nice to see the Cleric distinguished from the wizard by the social role she plays: a Cleric isn't just someone who gets powers from praying, a Cleric is a liaison between mortality and immortality. Which should include the pre-Abrahamic model of "I am the community's diplomatic envoy to the deity" as much as the Abrahamic model of "I am the deity's representative to the community." Since they're both Leader roles, Clerics could step on some Warlord toes here.