Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Simplified 5e, Maneuvers n' stuff
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6059515" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>Ya know...I find this a really intriguing idea...and it is flush with the idea of a basic/simple/easy to learn and start to play core game. Your class uses magic or it doesn't. I kinda like it.</p><p></p><p>I'm just not sure if, after the passed 35 years, those snakes will go back in the peanut brittle can. *casts sticks to snakes* ["Would that be divine or natural sticks to snakes?" he wonders...] Nope, not even if they're sticks.</p><p></p><p>Even though there wasn't really a definition of terms like "divine" or "arcane" in the Way Back When, the concept that cleric's magic and mage's magic are two different things is just a little bit too..."in the DNA of DnD", as it were.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is where the idea of the Warlock as a "channeling" class came from, for me...in a way. Well, this and the fact that they insisted on calling their powers "invocations", which I take as a decidedly religious-insinuating term. They gain their powers from a higher being but that being is...to my mind, giving the Warlock a jar of energy and saying, "here ya go, use it up." Whereas I would say, the god is taking the lid off of THEIR jar of energy and saying to the cleric "here ya go. You'e been good. Take a cookie. Keep being good and you can come back for another cookie."</p><p></p><p>Maybe a bit too slight of a distinction, but it's always made sense to me.</p><p></p><p>To your original point, I concur. No, D&D has not traditionally done that good a job defining or differentiating the types of magic. It was the kind of thing, I think, was on purpose...so you could make it however you wanted it in your games. I defined them for my campaign world eons ago and, so, I have a pretty clear view of what the different kinds of magic are/mean. I am inclined to presume that if 5e tried to do this, LOTS of people would be up in arms about WotC trying to tell them how to play their game. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But...but they're not. 0<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, that's a flaw in the fluff then...imho. It should have been stipulated that a warlock could not make a Pact with Asmodeus...which kinda makes all kindsa sense to me. Think Asmodeus needs to be bothered with entertaining a mortal's paltry conceits for power? There are scores of levels of hierarchy of devils beneath him to handle that kind of nonsense. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I concur, again. It does seem a bit arbitrary. But at the same time, since the archetype of the Warlock was, likely, being based off of a combination of the Charmed tv show and the traditional lore of a "warlock" being a term akin to a "witch"...the archetype seems to lean to D&D's concept of the "arcane." [as I can't imagine D&D EVER having the guts to treat a witch as a divine magic-user. But that's a whole nuthuh can of peanut brittle.]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thank you. And yes, they did [get lumped in, that is]. I still cannot fathom why.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I get what you're saying. See above re: having my own definitions and whether or not WotC should be doing that defining for us.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, very possibly correct...and intriguing idea. I mean, I have the definitions for them in my campaign world. Those are not likely to change. But for a "core/basic/simple/starter" game, I see no reason this couldn't be the case...and then the "Advanced/Complete/Next Stage of Next" game hardbacks could (but wouldn't <em>have</em> to) go into separating them out.</p><p></p><p>--SD</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6059515, member: 92511"] Ya know...I find this a really intriguing idea...and it is flush with the idea of a basic/simple/easy to learn and start to play core game. Your class uses magic or it doesn't. I kinda like it. I'm just not sure if, after the passed 35 years, those snakes will go back in the peanut brittle can. *casts sticks to snakes* ["Would that be divine or natural sticks to snakes?" he wonders...] Nope, not even if they're sticks. Even though there wasn't really a definition of terms like "divine" or "arcane" in the Way Back When, the concept that cleric's magic and mage's magic are two different things is just a little bit too..."in the DNA of DnD", as it were. This is where the idea of the Warlock as a "channeling" class came from, for me...in a way. Well, this and the fact that they insisted on calling their powers "invocations", which I take as a decidedly religious-insinuating term. They gain their powers from a higher being but that being is...to my mind, giving the Warlock a jar of energy and saying, "here ya go, use it up." Whereas I would say, the god is taking the lid off of THEIR jar of energy and saying to the cleric "here ya go. You'e been good. Take a cookie. Keep being good and you can come back for another cookie." Maybe a bit too slight of a distinction, but it's always made sense to me. To your original point, I concur. No, D&D has not traditionally done that good a job defining or differentiating the types of magic. It was the kind of thing, I think, was on purpose...so you could make it however you wanted it in your games. I defined them for my campaign world eons ago and, so, I have a pretty clear view of what the different kinds of magic are/mean. I am inclined to presume that if 5e tried to do this, LOTS of people would be up in arms about WotC trying to tell them how to play their game. But...but they're not. 0:) Well, that's a flaw in the fluff then...imho. It should have been stipulated that a warlock could not make a Pact with Asmodeus...which kinda makes all kindsa sense to me. Think Asmodeus needs to be bothered with entertaining a mortal's paltry conceits for power? There are scores of levels of hierarchy of devils beneath him to handle that kind of nonsense. ;) I concur, again. It does seem a bit arbitrary. But at the same time, since the archetype of the Warlock was, likely, being based off of a combination of the Charmed tv show and the traditional lore of a "warlock" being a term akin to a "witch"...the archetype seems to lean to D&D's concept of the "arcane." [as I can't imagine D&D EVER having the guts to treat a witch as a divine magic-user. But that's a whole nuthuh can of peanut brittle.] Thank you. And yes, they did [get lumped in, that is]. I still cannot fathom why. I get what you're saying. See above re: having my own definitions and whether or not WotC should be doing that defining for us. Again, very possibly correct...and intriguing idea. I mean, I have the definitions for them in my campaign world. Those are not likely to change. But for a "core/basic/simple/starter" game, I see no reason this couldn't be the case...and then the "Advanced/Complete/Next Stage of Next" game hardbacks could (but wouldn't [I]have[/I] to) go into separating them out. --SD [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Simplified 5e, Maneuvers n' stuff
Top