Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9362613" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes.How is that my &quot;very argument&quot;?&nbsp; I never said anything of the sort.&nbsp; In fact, if you'll go back and read me from the start I implied something quite the opposite of that.&nbsp;&nbsp; Moreover, I never said &quot;It's magic therefore it's just another wizard&quot;.&nbsp; That quote isn't even a paraphrase of something I said, which makes it there for a lie.&nbsp;&nbsp; Something closer to what I actually said was &quot;It's magic therefore it's just another spellcaster&quot;, although really it was more like, &quot;It's magic therefore it can access and be emulated by the core magic system like any other spellcaster.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; But really, even &quot;It's magic&quot; is where mostly people got stuck.Once you define it as &quot;magic&quot; then we are already like 95% in agreement.&nbsp; We don't really have a whole lot left to argue about after that, since we're just discussing what the best way to implement magic for D&amp;D would be.I mean, yes and no.&nbsp; If you go read closely, there isn't really any difference in the spells in divine magic and the spells in arcane magic.&nbsp; Contrary to some assumptions, Clerics don't do miracles based on faith.&nbsp; They are given spells to cast by an outside force.&nbsp; In some cases, from the perspective of that outside being the spell is arcane magic in that it's a spell-like ability that they are casting from their innate power much like a sorcerer.&nbsp; The spell becomes &quot;divine magic&quot; mostly because it is given to the caster to use from an external source.&nbsp;&nbsp; The biggest distinction - and some could argue the only distinction - between divine magic and arcane magic is whether or not you are the source of the power and the spell, or some other being is the source of the power or the spell.The Druid's history is complicated and there is no one right answer here about &quot;nature magic&quot;.&nbsp; In 1e in many cases it was implied that Druid's were a subclass of Cleric and that they received their magic from certain deities associated with nature.&nbsp; In 2e this became the basis of the idea of the &quot;specialty priest&quot; which was simply a cleric that specifically reflected a particular deity better than the generic cleric of 1e did, and druids were simply the specialty priests of certain deities.&nbsp; Only in later editions do we here anything about &quot;nature magic&quot; in a very nebulous sort of way.&nbsp; We could have a whole discussion about what is wrong with the druid as a core class and why having druids as a core class is probably incorrect, but I think it's enough to discuss the psion for now.Pop culture psychic and 19th century spiritualism have a lot more in common than you seem to thing.Sure so now we have a spellcaster that casts arcane magic called the Psionic and you think this is a big difference of opinion with me?&nbsp; It's not clear to me who the &quot;they&quot; is but presumably you are saying in the future wizards shouldn't get clairvoyance and telekinesis?&nbsp; Or maybe psionics should get the ability to make fire with their mind because that's a wizard thing?&nbsp; I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are concluding because you seem to want to fight a fight I was never interested in, and have readily conceded the central fact that I was arguing in favor of.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9362613, member: 4937"] Yes. How is that my "very argument"? I never said anything of the sort. In fact, if you'll go back and read me from the start I implied something quite the opposite of that. Moreover, I never said "It's magic therefore it's just another wizard". That quote isn't even a paraphrase of something I said, which makes it there for a lie. Something closer to what I actually said was "It's magic therefore it's just another spellcaster", although really it was more like, "It's magic therefore it can access and be emulated by the core magic system like any other spellcaster." But really, even "It's magic" is where mostly people got stuck. Once you define it as "magic" then we are already like 95% in agreement. We don't really have a whole lot left to argue about after that, since we're just discussing what the best way to implement magic for D&D would be. I mean, yes and no. If you go read closely, there isn't really any difference in the spells in divine magic and the spells in arcane magic. Contrary to some assumptions, Clerics don't do miracles based on faith. They are given spells to cast by an outside force. In some cases, from the perspective of that outside being the spell is arcane magic in that it's a spell-like ability that they are casting from their innate power much like a sorcerer. The spell becomes "divine magic" mostly because it is given to the caster to use from an external source. The biggest distinction - and some could argue the only distinction - between divine magic and arcane magic is whether or not you are the source of the power and the spell, or some other being is the source of the power or the spell. The Druid's history is complicated and there is no one right answer here about "nature magic". In 1e in many cases it was implied that Druid's were a subclass of Cleric and that they received their magic from certain deities associated with nature. In 2e this became the basis of the idea of the "specialty priest" which was simply a cleric that specifically reflected a particular deity better than the generic cleric of 1e did, and druids were simply the specialty priests of certain deities. Only in later editions do we here anything about "nature magic" in a very nebulous sort of way. We could have a whole discussion about what is wrong with the druid as a core class and why having druids as a core class is probably incorrect, but I think it's enough to discuss the psion for now. Pop culture psychic and 19th century spiritualism have a lot more in common than you seem to thing. Sure so now we have a spellcaster that casts arcane magic called the Psionic and you think this is a big difference of opinion with me? It's not clear to me who the "they" is but presumably you are saying in the future wizards shouldn't get clairvoyance and telekinesis? Or maybe psionics should get the ability to make fire with their mind because that's a wizard thing? I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are concluding because you seem to want to fight a fight I was never interested in, and have readily conceded the central fact that I was arguing in favor of. [/QUOTE]

Verification