D&D 5E WHY is there (still) no Class that allows you to use both Arcane and Divine magic...?

[Quickleaf]

Not necessarily the whole sorcerer kit. Just the "Pick X spells, and that's all you can do" bit.

Gotcha. Yes, in the hands of a responsible somewhat experienced player that could totally work.

My proposal was meant to enforce a theme (and minimize cherry-picking) while fulfilling the OP's mandate of having all spells available to the class (at least at character creation). I was trying to present a design that didn't assume the player was (a) experienced, and (b) not a power-gamer.

IME the players who are most apt to request "a wizard like (insert literature source)" are less likely to have much experience with D&D, whereas the ones most apt to request "a mystic theurge who can cherry-pick whatever spells I want" are more likely to be power gamers. Of course, that's just anecdotal, so take it with a grain of sea salt.

 

[Ath-kethin]

My proposal was meant to enforce a theme (and minimize cherry-picking) while fulfilling the OP's mandate of having all spells available to the class (at least at character creation). I was trying to present a design that didn't assume the player was (a) experienced, and (b) not a power-gamer.

There was a Wolfgang Baur article in Dragon Magazine #216 that introduced "paths" of magic, which organized all the spells thematically, and as prerequisites for each other. For example, you couldn't learn Fireball unless you had learned Burning Hands earlier.

Obviously that article is a couple of editions old, but I always thought it was a great idea and wanted to run with it. It might help a person formulate the kind of thematic division you are describing.

 

[Saeviomagy]

TBH, you won't really break anything by allowing wizards to scribe cleric spells or by allowing clerics to prepare wizard spells. In general spells are a lot more balanced these days.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

So the theme of the class is "no features, pick whatever spells you want"? I'm not sure that's a class.

No, the theme and other features of the class are To Be Determined. I'm just examining the one particular mechanic of spell choice for now.

Paladin and (theoretically) ranger spells are balanced around those classes gaining spell slots half as fast as full casters and capping out at fifth-level spells. This already creates a small problem with lore bards being able to snake their spells. A take-whatever class with unfettered access to paladin spells would pull ahead of other classes steadily until around tenth level, and then the others would slowly catch up moving toward twentieth.

No, paladin spells are balanced around those classes getting martial combat abilities to make up for their spellcasting being only about half as powerful as a full caster. Destructive wave is a good 5th-level spell, but it's not exactly a 9th-level spell in disguise, and a full-caster class that can take it (like the bard) isn't out of line with regular old wizards and sorcerers.

If for whatever reason there were 5th-level spells that were 9th-level spells in disguise, then yes, of course a take-anything class would be a balance problem. I already said as much in a previous post. But I disagree that paladin and ranger spells fit that description.

Beyond that . . . think about what spells you would take at each spell level. You wouldn't have a school or elemental affinity or domain or theme steering you in any direction, so what would you take? All the best spells, right?

What exactly are those? Because whatever you come up with, I think you'll find that a wizard, cleric of the correct domain, or (especially) lore bard can probably take most of them already, if the player is so inclined.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Wizards get Wish, which can be used to bring someone back to life.

You could also use it to cast Cure Wounds.

Just sayin'.

 

[Ganymede81]

Arcane cleric, tempest cleric, light cleric, bard. The line between divine and arcane is so thin that it's really more a matter of how you conceive of those two types than any real difference in the game mechanics.

Aside from the possible exception of the Arcane cleric, those are not actually examples of a single class harnessing both the powers of the arcane and the divine. When divine casters gain access to arcane spells via an expanded list, and vice versa, they become divine and arcane respectively.

 

[happyhermit]

One of the very first things that surprised me about 5e was that the Bard was exactly what the OP is asking about, "A class that allows you to use both "Arcane" and "Divine" magic". Doesn't even require a lore bard, just the basic spell list. You don't get everything, but a mixture of it all is available.

Is there a way to for an Arcane spellcaster to get a "Raise Dead"-type spell? Even a weak one like Revitify? (I am aware of the Wizard school that lets you make a Philosopher Stone that can be used to raise the dead, but anything else?)

Yes, Bard chooses such a spell with Magical Secrets. Done.

No need for magic secrets even, Bard simply gets Raise dead, Resurrection, etc.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Yes, Bard chooses such a spell with Magical Secrets. Done.

Actually, Raise Dead and Resurrection are on the bard spell list normally.

So are Healing Word, Cure Wounds/Mass Cure Wounds, Lesser/Greater Restoration, and Regenerate.

Bards are perfectly competent healers as is. You only need Magical Secrets for Revivify or something rarer/specific like Mass Healing Word, Prayer of Healing, or Aura of Vitality.

 

[happyhermit]

Huzzah! I ninja-ed someone else for once in my life.

Bards have been pretty amazing for me, one bunch of new to rpg players had nobody who really wanted to take on a spellcaster but they felt like they needed healing and MAGIC! Someone took a bard and it worked out perfectly.

While I worry (not actually) that they might be a bit OP in theory, they haven't caused any problems for us.

 

[Greg K]

I gotta admit. IMO, this is one of the most inane rotes currently coming out of certain camps. Really? It's an optional rule? Yes, we know, "it says so". But what rule isn't an optional rule? Point to any rule in the PHB that is not optional.

And you have been on this board for what? A year? Many people post optional rules- especially- popular ones as *the* solution when not everyone uses it and having other options or variants can work be better for specific groups.

You sound like you are speaking from a position of superior knowledge. Please, provide data to back up this "many D&D groups" experiencing this issue you cited.

No. I am making observations from posts going back to early 3e on these boards and elsewhere where certain posters would state that would prefer new classes or variants to 3e multi-classing. Not uncommon posts were for a swashbuckler class and some posters would tell them use rogue/fighter multi-class. Someone would post a wish for a non-magical ranger rather than multiclassing and be told use ranger/fighter or ranger/fighter/rogue. Guess what WOTC gave us during 3.5? A Swashbuckler class, a Martial Rogue class variant. A Scout class and the wilderness rogue (which could be combined with the martial rogue). Why, because not everyone liked or used 3e multiclassing which was not listed as optional and 5e multi-classing is not much different than 3e multiclassing.

Everyone brings their own baggage to the table. I certainly don't have such hang-ups occurring at my tables as you outline here.

Yipee for you. We are not talking about you. We are talking about solutions for those that do not like 5e style multi-classing, because it is not the best solution for those people.

Says you. My considerable experience informs me otherwise. So now what? Do our votes on the matter cancel each other out?

Read what I wrote again. I was talking about for those people that might use 5e multiclassing, but would prefer different options as happened with 3e.