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

[Li Shenron]

In D&D, there has traditionally been a sharp divide between Classes that use Arcane magic (i.e. Wizards, etc.) and Classes that have access to Divine magic (i.e. Clerics, etc.), such that Wizards and the like receive no healing or resurrection magic UNLESS they multiclass (the Bard being an exception).

However, in quite a few works of fantasy fiction - and other RPGs - Wizardly characters do not have any such limitation, freely casting any spells available in the fictional world or game system (i.e. GURPS mages are not prohibited from selecting healing or raise dead type spells - in fact, in GURPS Banestorm, the world of Yrth, only mages cast spells - any "cleric"-type character must be a mage to do so!) So why is there no such "blended" Class in D&D?

I understand that such a Class could not have all the "bells and whistles" of both a D&D Cleric and a D&D Wizard, or it would be overpowered... but surely there's some way to make a build that would not be game-breaking?

This is the correct answer:

Also of note, the divide between Arcane and Divine was mostly an organizational structure for 3E. Before and after that, every class has its own spell list, which doesn't necessarily conform to that divide.

IOW, there is no "arcane magic" vs "divine magic" in 5e D&D. There are just individual classes, each one with its own backstory about why they are capable of spellcasting, and each one with its own spells list.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

Why am I not surprised? So much of my design/GM thinking was influenced by Wolfgang Baur growing up

Looking over that article, Wolfgang cited a whole bunch of sources... PHB, Arabian Adventures, Secrets of the Lamp, Complete Sha'ir's Handbook, City of Delights, Complete Book of Necromancers, Complete Wizard’s Handbook, Drow of the Underdark accessory, FORGOTTEN REALMS® Adventures, Planes of Law... That's a lot of spells to choose from!

It might be trickier to create such a "domain mage" with just the spells in the 5e PHB.

 

[S'mon]

The "Literary Wizard" in 5e is called the Lore Bard. If you want a guy who acts like a non-D&D Wizard, use Bard.

 

[Valetudo]

YEAH! Wheres my warlord class? Wait what?

 

[Eubani]

YEAH! Wheres my warlord class? Wait what?

I told people earlier in this thread no upsetting grognards now conduct the ritual of appeasement and make sure that it is one from 1st edition or earlier.

 

[Aldarc]

In D&D, there has traditionally been a sharp divide between Classes that use Arcane magic (i.e. Wizards, etc.) and Classes that have access to Divine magic (i.e. Clerics, etc.), such that Wizards and the like receive no healing or resurrection magic UNLESS they multiclass (the Bard being an exception).

However, in quite a few works of fantasy fiction - and other RPGs - Wizardly characters do not have any such limitation, freely casting any spells available in the fictional world or game system (i.e. GURPS mages are not prohibited from selecting healing or raise dead type spells - in fact, in GURPS Banestorm, the world of Yrth, only mages cast spells - any "cleric"-type character must be a mage to do so!) So why is there no such "blended" Class in D&D?

I understand that such a Class could not have all the "bells and whistles" of both a D&D Cleric and a D&D Wizard, or it would be overpowered... but surely there's some way to make a build that would not be game-breaking?

Tradition.

It's a shame though we could not get an Arcana Unearthed/Evolved for 5th Edition. Monte's alternate class system - which seems understatedly influential on 5e magic system - got rid of divine/arcane distinctions, focusing instead on developing classes around archetype playstyle: healing, gish, magical master, etc. This meant there was a unified spell list of magic, with both healing and divine magic on the same list. Magic was grouped into simple, complex, and exotic spells, with classes being distinguished by their access to spells by complexity and spell descriptor tags (e.g. healing, plant, fire, etc.).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

And you have been on this board for what? A year?

And you've been here for what? Fourteen years? And still only 13th level? Fascinating. I'm already 12th level and I've only been here for less than a year. Hmmmm...

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.

I fail to see the relevance of this.

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).

This is a 5e forum. If you like, I can provide a link to a forum more applicable to your points.

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.

Are you edition warring right now? I would caution you that stuff like that is frowned upon around here. Someone who's been here since 2002 should know that, I would think.

Yipee for you. We are not talking about you.

Let me guess. We are actually supposed to be talking about you, amIright?

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.

That is not evident. Maybe you are talking about that. But that has not been the discussion at large.

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.

So you trying to derail the thread? Is that your confession?

 

[Rottle]

Hey all, stop with using tradition as the excuse. 1e had a class with both divine and arcane spell casting in the phb....its called the ranger. Ok not high level casting but it was still there. Also legit multi classes in the 1e phb included the cleric/fighter/magic user, cleric/magic user, and cleric/ranger. I still like that multiclassing better then any since ( 2e only slightly behind the others way behind).

 

[Aldarc]

Hey all, stop with using tradition as the excuse. 1e had a class with both divine and arcane spell casting in the phb....its called the ranger. Ok not high level casting but it was still there. Also legit multi classes in the 1e phb included the cleric/fighter/magic user, cleric/magic user, and cleric/ranger. I still like that multiclassing better then any since ( 2e only slightly behind the others way behind).

I largely agree. Tradition, however, was not always the case and sometimes it only increasingly encases certain practices, whether for better or worse, into stone.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*