The same sidebar appears in the Basic PDF, p 81.
REH's Conan is an instance of this.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What are the Roles now?
- Thread starter Unwise
- Start date
I don't think you understand what I am saying at all. I am saying a healing spell is always divine magic. It is in the sense of the power source, or the raw material. A bard who can cast both arcane spells and divine spells casts both kinds. The divine spells don't become arcane spells just because the bard isn't a priest or cleric. A priest taps into divine magic to cast divine spells.
Thematically, I actually do have some objection to bards casting divine spells, such as healing spells, but that is another topic. The other poster said "divine magic is needed for a well-rounded party", and someone asked why he would need divine magic. If the bard is to heal, he must use divine magic.
Prism
Explorer
Maybe in 1st edition but not since. And since we are talking about 5th edition as others have pointed out bards are arcane casters and one of those arcane spells is cure wounds
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Well then, you would be saying something factually incorrect, in terms of how D&D labels these things. A spell which heals can be either arcane or divine magic. D&D, in 3e, 4e, and now 5e, does not consider "healing" to be automatically divine. If you decide it is at your table, that's up to you, but the RAW is that healing is something that can be done without using "divine" magic.
By the definition I provided (which, apparently, is also in the Basic doc), the raw material is always the Weave, regardless of who is using it. So this "raw material" standard classifies divine and arcane magic the same way, at least in 5e. (I suspect 4e would be somewhat different, but 3e would be the same.)
See, again you are fiat declaring that a healing spell must, by definition, be divine. The books do not do that. Healing is healing no matter how it is accessed, and the method of access is determined by class. If you wish to view it differently, that's your prerogative, but that's not how the books are written.
Edit:
Additionally, I don't think it's a good idea for you to make blanket statements explicitly about "all editions," when you've admitted in this very thread that you have played very little of 3e and implied that you've played no 4e at all (again, I cannot assume you haven't, but since you didn't mention it the implication is there.) If it works the way you say it did in 1e or earlier, I'll have to take your word on that--I haven't played any of the "older" editions apart from B/X, and that was in an idiosyncratic but super cool custom setting anyway.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
that is a very good question... lets pester SAGE ADVICE for an answer...
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
In general, I think the idea is supposed to be that they aren't (precisely) "accessing through an intermediary." The Warlock is given secret knowledge, akin to Dr. Faustus. Usually that knowledge is only granted as part of a "binding agreement" (Pact) which specifies services rendered on both sides.
That said, both Paladins and Warlocks push this into a fairly grey area. Paladins can get spells purely from the "weight of a sacred oath," which has subtle overtones of a contractual agreement (though the implication is that it's sort of a "contract with yourself," a bit like the story of Samson and his vow not to cut his hair). Warlocks get power--whether secrets or actual out-and-out magical endowment--by courting powerful entities.
If I had to rule on it, since I strongly prefer thinking of Warlocks as arcane, it would be that Warlock patrons know the "backdoor hacks" of magic--dangerous but potent--which they then reveal to Warlocks in exchange for something. The Pact, then, is what ensures Warlocks don't just run off and use those powers to do whatever they want, because the patron cannot just suck knowledge back out of the Warlock's head. The Paladin, on the other hand, taps into the strength of a purity of mind and body--not necessarily the "purity" that a Puritan would advocate, but a wholehearted earnestness of purpose and condition.
Under this idea, Vhailor would be a Paladin (a dark one, since he's so murder-happy), while certain so-called "Wizards" would actually be Warlocks because they were taught by the goddess (or god) of magic directly. Furthermore, Warlocks who settle down and teach others would produce new Wizards, and hence the enmity between the two arises (they're bucking the established hierarchy).
You are welcome to your opinion, pemerton.
Don't be telling me what to comment on, or put words in my mouth. I said every edition. I don't claim to be a lexicon of information about any edition.
It doesn't seem to me you have the facts right. Thank you, all the same, for telling why you wouldn't accept anything I say.
[MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] has given an answer from the in-fiction point of view.
From the point of view of design, I think the reason is fairly simple: legacy. If you were starting the game from scratch, what would be the difference between an anti-paladin and a blade pact warlock? Or between an evil clerical cultists and a tome pact warlock? None! They occupy the same archetypical space.
But D&D has a legacy of them being different things. (Much like its legacy of making the paladin something different from the heavily armed and armoured cleric, even though these also, archetypically, fill the same space.)
It doesn't - there is no notion, in 1st ed AD&D, of "divine magic" as a power source or raw material. As per Gygax's DMG, all magic accesses power from other planes, primarily the Positive and Negative Material Planes.
In 1st ed AD&D the Vancian flavour of daily spell casting is foregrounded to a much greater extent than in more recent editions. The difference between clerics and MUs, within the fiction, is explained in terms of how the spells are implanted in their brains. For MUs, the spell is implanted in the brain by studying a spell book. For a cleric, the spell is implanted in the brain by prayer: for 1st and 2nd level spells, dedicated prayer is enough on its own, but for higher level spells the cleric receives the spell from his/her god or some angelic or similar intermediary.
Stepping outside the fiction into the real world of game design, their is an implicit understanding in AD&D that MUs cannot use healing spells, for balance reasons. Later campaign settings and 2nd ed AD&D supplements probably spelled out in-fiction rationalisations for this at great length (that's the sort of thing that 2nd ed AD&D supplements excelled at!). But within the core books of 1st ed AD&D this difference in spell capability does not have an in-fiction explanation.
I don't know where [MENTION=6731904]SirAntoine[/MENTION] developed his ideas about all healing accessing the raw power of divine magic, but it has no basis in the AD&D 1st ed canon.
