D&D 5E Why are we still stuck with divine casters knowing all spells?

[Ratskinner]

I think a larger problem is the set-in-concrete idea that divine magic is the principal source of healing. I've never bought into the convention that divine magic is the source of healing. Why? It makes sense if you worship a god of war, life, fertility or some similar domain, but what about the god of knowledge or trickery? One of the (relatively few) things I really like about 4e is that there are a fine assortment of non-divine sources of healing. It's a step in the right direction.

I also want echo what some of the earlier posts said about having cleric spell lists defined by their domain(s) and go a step further to say there's no need for a common list. That's not to say there can't be duplication among the domains, but again, I don't see a logical reason for a common list among divine casters.

In terms of game mechanics, it would add some much needed diversity and flexibility to the cleric class and spreading healing among multiple classes and/or skills/powers would balance the game a bit better.

Personally, I don't have any problem eliminating the Divine/Arcane distinction at all.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

-

I think a larger problem is the set-in-concrete idea that divine magic is the principal source of healing. I've never bought into the convention that divine magic is the source of healing. Why? It makes sense if you worship a god of war, life, fertility or some similar domain, but what about the god of knowledge or trickery?

I think there's two separate issues there. I don't have a problem with divine being the primary source of healing. The gods control life and death.

It doesn't make much sense that a god of death might promote healing though. (A god of war promoting healing does make sense though. Why wouldn't they want a warrior to get back into the fight?)

I also want echo what some of the earlier posts said about having cleric spell lists defined by their domain(s) and go a step further to say there's no need for a common list. That's not to say there can't be duplication among the domains, but again, I don't see a logical reason for a common list among divine casters.

But this is where I must strongly disagree with you. For game balance reasons, I think there should be a common cleric spell list and include healing (maybe as abilities, so you don't have to spend spells on it).

This isn't to say that all priests need to heal, but if they're a priest and not a cleric (which I would call a part of the "elite" tier of priests) they're not worthy of being a PC. I don't think it's good for the game for someone to say they want to play a priest, and then when noone else shows up with healing abilities it turns out the necro-priest can't heal either. That kind of thing cropped up in 2e, at least in FR games I was in, where spheres were incredibly restrictive.

(There is such a class in 4e - the invoker. Even comes in controller and artillery flavors. However, the role system ensures that no one thinks an invoker is a leader. You could literally have a divine-only party with only one healer in 4e. Unfortunately, you can't be an invoker of a single god, which I find to be lame.)

spreading healing among multiple classes and/or skills/powers would balance the game a bit better.

Unfortunately WotC doesn't seem willing to go this route. Especially at low levels, where your non-magical healing is anemic.

 

[Klaus]

How so?

As it is right now, a wizard needs to look up all rulebooks once per level, when he gains new spells.

A cleric, druid, paladin or ranger needs to look up all rulebooks every day, when he prepares his spells. That is the true problem with divine casters automatically knowing all spells in a level.

Now that Cure Wounds is a single spell, all a divine caster needs to fulfill his "healer" angle is a "Remove Affliction" spell that, if cast at higher levels, cures diseases, removes poison, paralysis, petrification, curses, etc.

 

[timASW]

Personally, I don't have any problem eliminating the Divine/Arcane distinction at all.

That would be my preference as well but I've been told its a fools hope everytime I bring it up.

 

[Psikosis]

(snip) But this is where I must strongly disagree with you. For game balance reasons, I think there should be a common cleric spell list and include healing (maybe as abilities, so you don't have to spend spells on it). (snip)

I get the point about game balance. As things stand now, there's really no other option.

My point was that it shouldn't have to be this way because, as I see it, it makes no logical sense in the context of the game. It is simpler to conceptualize all magic as being the same regardless of source and allow any class that knows how to make use of it to heal if they have the requisite spells. My analogy: Electricity may be generated mechanically (a turbine) or chemically (a battery), but there's no difference in the properties of the electricity - the light bulb goes on all the same. Likewise, magic is magic whether you get the spell from your deity or your spellbook, magic should function all the same.

The current system is a lazy route to 'game balance', which shouldn't be most important goal of game mechanics anyway (and get much too much attention). But that's something for another thread.

PS- I rarely play cleric/priest types so I missed the 4e invoker entirely. Thanks for the pointer.

 

[Li Shenron]

But this is where I must strongly disagree with you. For game balance reasons, I think there should be a common cleric spell list and include healing (maybe as abilities, so you don't have to spend spells on it).

This isn't to say that all priests need to heal, but if they're a priest and not a cleric (which I would call a part of the "elite" tier of priests) they're not worthy of being a PC. I don't think it's good for the game for someone to say they want to play a priest, and then when noone else shows up with healing abilities it turns out the necro-priest can't heal either.

I strongly disagree with this, and I can go as far as saying that this way of though is detrimental to the game.

Generally speaking, I can agree if you say that the "iconic Cleric" must heal, just like the "iconic Fighter" must be the a tank, the "iconic Rogue" must be skilled at lockpicking and trapfinding" and the "iconic Wizard" must have blast area spells.

But there must be absolutely no requirement for a Cleric to be iconic etc.
And there must be absolutely no requirement for a Cleric PC (yes PC, not just NPC) to be the healbot, just like there must be absolutely no requirement for a Fighter PC to be the tank, a Rogue PC to pick locks and find traps, a Wizard PC to fireball foes. Otherwise we'd be playing iconic D&D only, and this is a huge restriction.

If nobody should force another player to play a Cleric or play a tank Fighter etc., then nobody should force another player to play a healbot Cleric.

The only reason to force restrictions on PCs should be because of the fantasy setting, e.g. if you're playing an Oriental Adventure game, it's plain stupid to pretend to play a robotic vampiric jedi paladin (can still be allowed, but it's group's own responsibility to see if it's still the Oriental game they want).

Otherwise, every other attempt at pretending another player plays only what the group needs while the others presumably are instead free to choose, should die in a fire, because it's not even polite. (OTOH, if the whole group works together to create a balanced group of PCs, that's totally good... but it cannot turn into a "you choose the wrong class, now you do as we say").

D&D has spent now more than 10 years trying to change in order to work without a healbot, and it does work without a healbot. All you need to do, is dial the appropriate resources to match the frequency of encounter in the adventure.

Then the group must work with or without a Cleric, and if it can work without a Cleric then obviously it can also work with a low-healing Cleric.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I strongly disagree with this, and I can go as far as saying that this way of though is detrimental to the game.

Generally speaking, I can agree if you say that the "iconic Cleric" must heal, just like the "iconic Fighter" must be the a tank, the "iconic Rogue" must be skilled at lockpicking and trapfinding" and the "iconic Wizard" must have blast area spells.

Is the iconic fighter a tank though? You can be an "archer fighter" and you end up with more hit points and armor proficiencies than you need.

I think sticking too closely to the class names are detrimental here. You don't need to to use the fighter class to be "the best fighter with a bow". I would instead come up with a new class for that. You can still be an archer, and not be a tank. You'd actually get class features that support what you're doing too.

But there must be absolutely no requirement for a Cleric to be iconic etc.

If you're reading between the lines, you'll note I'm not advocating for a priest to be iconic. Only the cleric. The priest (invoker) is something else. A death priest of Orcus isn't iconic, so why should they be required to use the same class?

If nobody should force another player to play a Cleric or play a tank Fighter etc., then nobody should force another player to play a healbot Cleric.

Boring healbots only exist because clerics have to give up their more interesting spells for healing, and because the action requirements on healing are so onerous. 4th Edition already fixed both of those problems. I'm playing a cleric in 4th Edition right now and I don't feel "beholden" to the group even when someone drops (or is close to it) and I put a Healing Word on them. That's a far cry from playing clerics in 2e or 3e, where you had to give up a spell, and usually a full action (move and cast a touch spell).

D&D has spent now more than 10 years trying to change in order to work without a healbot, and it does work without a healbot. All you need to do, is dial the appropriate resources to match the frequency of encounter in the adventure.

I don't think it does this very well at all in any edition of D&D, except in 4e. (Ironically the edition where they fixed the cleric so it's not boring or overworked.) Probably later levels in D&DXN due to Hit Dice, but I don't think that works very well in D&DN at low levels. Unless that healing issue is fixed, low-level D&DN are going to be stuck requiring clerics (the "healbot" kind) with the cheap healing potion specialty.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

In regards to the setting, the one significant difference between arcane and divine magic was access to positive or negative energy. Clerics got it and could heal. Wizards didn't. Of course, then you add in necromancy and throw everything off.

In third edition, a cleric only had access to one of the two, positive energy if he was good, or negative energy if he was evil. A neutral cleric got to choose which at character creation. This choice determined whether or not he could spontaneously cast healing or harm spells.

I suggest that each god, in addition to their specific spheres or domains, also have either the Positive Energy Domain or the Negative Energy Domain (or Holy and Unholy. or Necrotic). Druids and some gods would have both. Thus, all paladins, good clerics, and druids would be able to heal. The story stays sound and keeps with tradition.

 

[DonAdam]

I'd be happy if wizard healing was peculiar to one or more traditions. That way DM's that want a more traditional split can just outlaw those traditions.

 

[SkidAce]

Of course DMs (like I played with in Korea) can just add Wizard healing in...