Read on Twitter
Wizards learn spells, clerics ask for them.
Forget arcane vs divine; I think THAT'S the fundamental between those two classes and should really be reflected in the mechanics.
A #DnD thread.
Forget arcane vs divine; I think THAT'S the fundamental between those two classes and should really be reflected in the mechanics.
A #DnD thread.
You could really divide all spellcasting classes along these lines – people who learn spells and people who are given spells.
Let's call artificers, bards, sorcerers and wizards "learners" and let's call clerics, paladins and warlocks "petitioners".
Let's call artificers, bards, sorcerers and wizards "learners" and let's call clerics, paladins and warlocks "petitioners".
(For the moment, we’re gonna set aside druids and rangers since something about their spellcasting has actually never really made sense to me? A whole other thread sometime.)
I think the learners basically work the way they should – the higher level they get, the more power their study and practice grants them. That tracks.
It's the petitioners I wanna monkey with.
It's the petitioners I wanna monkey with.
The petitioners could somewhat map to the learners – a higher level cleric is closer to their god and thus more powerful.
Yet the fundamental relationship is essentially missing here. The cleric only has power because a gods grants it. That goes double for a warlock.
Yet the fundamental relationship is essentially missing here. The cleric only has power because a gods grants it. That goes double for a warlock.
Imagine a system where your personal standing with your god affected the powers you could unlock.
Where it was your deeds and quests that unlocked new spells. Where, when it was your turn, you asked your god for help, rather than ordering a spell off a menu.
Where it was your deeds and quests that unlocked new spells. Where, when it was your turn, you asked your god for help, rather than ordering a spell off a menu.
Cooler, right? More flavorful.
The reason this doesn't work is that it's too much narrative to bake into the mechanics of #DnD. It would throw the whole advancement system into whack to tie a class’s powers to story milestones rather than traditional XP.
Yet, to me, that’s the whole REASON to play a warlock. To have a personal relationship with the source of your power. Magic is impersonal for learners – the system doesn’t care how many users it has.
As a warlock, your magic is on the patron’s dime and that’s rife with story.
As a warlock, your magic is on the patron’s dime and that’s rife with story.
Makes me think of the way the 3.5 artificer worked. They didn’t even cast spells – they infused items to produce magical effects.
Which was this cool shakeup to the spellcasting system back then but, if you go and look now, the 5E artificer? Just casts spells.
Which was this cool shakeup to the spellcasting system back then but, if you go and look now, the 5E artificer? Just casts spells.
Because it’s simpler. Yet less interesting.
