your experience with generic classes?

[GreatLemur]

Is there any really compelling reason not to just ditch the arcane-divine distinction in such a game? As far as I can tell, it's nearly meaningless already:

"A spellcaster must choose at 1st level whether to be an arcane spellcaster or a divine spellcaster. This choice has no impact on the spells that she may learn, but affects what kinds of scrolls she can use and which ability score controls her spellcasting."

 

[Wik]

Is there any really compelling reason not to just ditch the arcane-divine distinction in such a game? As far as I can tell, it's nearly meaningless already:

"A spellcaster must choose at 1st level whether to be an arcane spellcaster or a divine spellcaster. This choice has no impact on the spells that she may learn, but affects what kinds of scrolls she can use and which ability score controls her spellcasting."

Remember that divine spells have no impact on the armour you may wear, and that nowhere in the generic classes does it say that arcane spell failure applies to divine magic - the spellcaster doesn't get armour proficiency, sure, but that's it.

 

[RFisher]

Remember that divine spells have no impact on the armour you may wear, and that nowhere in the generic classes does it say that arcane spell failure applies to divine magic - the spellcaster doesn't get armour proficiency, sure, but that's it.

So, if you were going to only have one, should it be divine to give the Spellcaster class a bit more oomph or arcane to keep it in check?

 

[rgard]

So, if you were going to only have one, should it be divine to give the Spellcaster class a bit more oomph or arcane to keep it in check?

I'd remove the distinction between arcane and divine and give the spellcaster class proficiency in light armor with no spell failure chance.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[RFisher]

I'd remove the distinction between arcane and divine and give the spellcaster class proficiency in light armor with no spell failure chance.

And this is (mechanically) different from "divine + free light armor proficiency" how?

I don't mean that as snarky. I really have been trying to figure out all the implications of a generic spellcaster choosing between divine & arcane, since they both get the same spells, they both have a limit on "known" spells like sorcerers, & neither has to "prepare" their spells.

So far the list is:

• Divine casters must use Wis as their casting ability; arcane may choose Int or Cha.
• Scrolls in the generic campaign are either divine or arcane.
• Arcane spellcasters are subject to spell failure when wearing armor.

 

[rgard]

And this is (mechanically) different from "divine + free light armor proficiency" how?

I don't mean that as snarky. I really have been trying to figure out all the implications of a generic spellcaster choosing between divine & arcane, since they both get the same spells, they both have a limit on "known" spells like sorcerers, & neither has to "prepare" their spells.

So far the list is:

• Divine casters must use Wis as their casting ability; arcane may choose Int or Cha.
• Scrolls in the generic campaign are either divine or arcane.
• Arcane spellcasters are subject to spell failure when wearing armor.

Hi RFisher, no worries, you didn't sound snarky.

I wrote that I would remove the distinction between arcane and divine. I'd make it just one spellcasting class that casts magic spells. No divine/arcane distinction. The class can choose from any spell. That flexibility is offset by only having 0% spell failure chance in light armor. You could allow the feat that gives a character an additional armor category with no spell failure chance and that would get you closer to the current cleric armor-wise.

Thanks,
Rich