Things that Irk Me about DnD (Somewhat long, kinda ranty)

[Merlion]

Well I see things have been going pretty well in my absence, which is good....lets see here...

Actually, I think that's fairly common, but the usual divide is between magic that is both divine and good versus magic that is either "divine" (in the D&D sense) or "arcane" and evil -- the real distinction is between good and evil, white and black.

Well, I agree that the existence of inherently good and inherently evil magic is common...but I still think anything resembling DnD "Divine", while it does exist, is pretty rare.

In D&D, "divine" magic, of course, isn't necessarily good magic -- but much of the system is designed around god-magic as good-magic.

This to me seems almost anime-like. It makes sense with some gods (Pelor springs to mind), but its inherent in the Cleric spell list, and it doesnt make any sense for a lot of gods...not just evil ones either.

D&D Clerics do not match the real-world Templars well at all. The Templars were a holy order of warrior monks, much more organized than a typical medieval army (more like a modern army), with diplomatic and banking ties throughout the middle east

Oh I realize it doesnt match well. But that is...so we are always told...one of the main basis for the Cleric class.

Which I have always found odd. Armor wearing people with some degree of magic/miracle casting ability is one thing...but clerics cast 8th and 9th level, high fantasy style spells, not just a little healing and combat-enhancing.

Thats more like the Paladin, the class that actually begins to fit the templar/holy warrior archtype.

This is your basic assumption, but it is wrong. D&D was never supposed to encompass all fantasy, it wasn't designed to do so, and it doesn't do it well when forced to (and this is the source of your complaints). This was true of the first editions and is still true today. The designers have never, ever, wanted to create a universal fantasy game, so complaining that they didn't is kinda pointless

People keep saying this, and yet within the material, in all additions, theres a lot of talk of using this or that class or presige class to represent this or that fantasy archtype or concept or character.

Now no it cant encompass all fantasy ideas.

And yes, it does its own things as well. I feel DnD is a trifle schizophrenic. It tries to be generic fantasy, and its own genre, at the same time.

A cleric isn't a priest. It's as simple as that

Yes, it is. This is stated in the rules and flavor text of the game time and time again. Besides which, they are by their very nature...they are earthly servants of gods or philosophies, and minister those beliefs to others. Thats what a priest is.

Probably done to keep them from being unbalanced; if they can do everything with magic, including healing and defence, then why do you need any of the other classes. Answer: you don't

Incorect, if the Mage can do those things, but not well...or even if he can do them well, but another class can do them better.

The Magister from Arcana Unearthed is pretty much exactly how I think a primary mage class should be. They can do some of everything...but the Greenbond is still a better healer.

Merlion, you think the way I think. Have you taken a look at Elements of Magic?

I will one of these days. Although having magic divided up into "elements"...I'm not sure about either. But I plan to have a peek at it somewhere along the way.

Clerics don't bother me - they're holy crusaders, prepared for war.

To me, thats the paladin.

If they were holy crusaders prepared for war, they would be mostly a militant class, with deccent spellcasting (as they were in previous edition). Now, they are full blown primary spellcasters who are also competent warriors, in and of them selves, no feats, alternate forms, or anything else required just from their own class stats/profciencies/spells. And they are the only class that is such.

What do with the clerics of these gods? Do you have to go to the extreme of making them cleric/wizards or give them a prestidge class like the Hollowed Mage (BoHM) or Dweomercrafter (Complete Divine web enhancement)?

This certainly does raise some questions. Especially say in the Realms. Mystra is the embodiment of all magic...and yet magic is split down the middle. Its weird. Which is why I'd just prefer magic as a whole, and any subdivisions to be based solely on class.

"Wizards" in some myth and legend do get their power from various gods, correct? The Wizard in the movie "Conan the Barbarian" casts exactly one spell, by performing a long ritual calling upon either gods or demons. Thulsa Doom, on the other hand, seems to have his magic inherent in him, and can "cast" much more quickly

In a manner. Often mythic/literary wizards cast spells that involving invoking the names of gods...but it is unusual...not unheard of, but in my experience unusual, to have spellcasters who's magic is directly granted, day by day, by a god as Cleric's spells are in DnD.

The only example I am familiar with is in the Eddings's Elenium/Tamuli. And they were basicaly "arcane" spellcasters in terms of what their magic did, and they had to study the "secrets" to learn them, but it did come from their chosen god.

I definitely agree with those who note that a "cleric" is not a "priest,

See above. they are called priests, within the game, frequently.

IMHO, defensive spells compensate pretty well for their weaknesses, especially against melee and ranged attacks, but I agree that a cleric is better in defense overall

A Cleric will generally be better in defense than a specialist Abjurer, which I find silly. Just as a Cleric is better with Undead than a specialist Necromancer, which is also odd.

Sorcerers yes, but it's not as true for wizards.

To a point. Wizards can know more spells. What I am getting at is the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list itself makes me feel like they are specialists in offense/illusion/teleportation rather than true master spellcasters.

I think the idea of 'pantheon' of dieties is imbedded in the D&D game, for better or for worse. However, giving the prominance of mythology in our culture it's an easy concept for people to imagine.

My problem is how madatory it is without altering the rules. Many classes depend on gods or at least religion in some form for their class functions.

And in my experience within fantasy literature and stories (which I would hazard to say are in the end the bigger influence on DnD) its at most half and half, and actually in my experience having lots of gods and having them extremely active is pretty unusual. Especialy active in the sense of granting classes/characters their powers, directly.

I've had trouble with sorcs and wizards being wimpy - and by wimpy I mean they usually have weak defensive spells, or they have all-or-nothing spells (often overpowered, such as greater invisibility or campaign-killing).

I'm pretty much in agreement with all your saying Psi

3) There is very little reason for the paladin to exist as a class. If you want to have paladins, they have to be something quite distinct from clerics or fighters (not merely a multiclass), unless you want to say the paladins are a particular order of clerics or fighters.

I think theres extensive reason for the paladin class to exist. The archtype of the knight/holy warrior is in my experience more common than that of the Cleric, and the Paladin if you remove the alignment restriction, embodies said archtype very well.

Clerics CHOOSE to be what they are and Paladins are chosen. When I think of a Cleric I think of a Templar, someone who chose to serve God and learned to use divine magic to be able to better serve his deity. He channels (again) his faith through his holy symbols etc

Mechnicaly, the Paladin fits the Templar a lot better.

And Clerics are now a primary spellcasting class, not a militant class that can do some magic to better serve their god

mechanicaly the Cleric is predominately the spellcasting priest/miracle worker. However, they have been allowed to retain considerable combat power as well, which is one reason they are a mildly overpowered class.


This post is getting pretty long so I will come back later and respond to some more comments. I just want to thank you guys for keeping this thread so nice and friendly and reasonble...just the way I like it.

 

[mmadsen]

Well, I agree that the existence of inherently good and inherently evil magic is common...but I still think anything resembling DnD "Divine", while it does exist, is pretty rare.

I think I'd have to take the exact opposite position: most fantasy magic is "divine" (in the D&D sense); all those magic symbols and incantation exist to summon spirits (or other supernatural agents) to do the wizard's bidding.

Certainly Elric's magic is divine. Many of the sorcerers from Conan's adventures rely on mesmerism, drugs, or primitive technology, but most summon otherworldly forces. Gandalf is Middle Earth's equivalent of an angel.

In myth and legend, magic is almost always divine -- whether good-divine or evil-divine (diabolical).

 

[Merlion]

I think we have different defintions of "divine"

To me divine=gods. Not spirits or supernatural forces as a whole, but deities or a creator deity.

Using symbols and calling upon spirits doesnt, to me, have anything to do with anything "divine". At least not automatically. And even within DnD, Arcane spellcasters can summon Celestials which are "divine"-ish beings.

Yes, Gandalf is an angel...but since he also isnt actually a wizard in anything remotely resembling the DnD sense, that doesnt really matter. He is a semi-divine entity who gets called a wizard.

As I mentioned, the Elenium is the only fantasy series/literature I have ever read that featured mage-type characters getting magic directly from gods. Not just from forces outside themselves, but from gods.

My literature to which I refer includes things like: The Earthsea cycle, the Shannara and Landover stories, the "High Wizardry" series, Pier's Anthony's Aprentice Adept series, The "Aurian" novels by Maggie Furey, more reccently Harry Potter series to mention a few.

None of these even have gods or anything really resembling them.

from Conan's adventures rely on mesmerism, drugs, or primitive technology, but most summon otherworldly forces

I dont understand the connection between "otherwordly forces" and "Divine forces". The word Divine means of god or the gods.

Demons and Devils are otherwordly. Anything that isnt from the world your currently occupying, is otherwordly. Now yes in primitive cultures things that werent even considered gods were placated and the like...but that doesnt mean that wizards calling on "otherwordly forces" makes their magic "divine" in the DnD sense.