The learning of magic is a fascinating and complex endeavor that has captivated individuals throughout history. From ancient civilizations to modern societies, the pursuit of magical knowledge has persisted, with practitioners seeking to uncover the secrets of the supernatural world and harness its powers. Magic, in its various forms, is often associated with mysticism and the occult. It involves the manipulation of natural forces beyond the realm of scientific understanding. This can include spellcasting, divination, alchemy, and enchantment, among other practices. Those who engage in the study of magic usually aspire to connect with unseen realms, tapping into the potential for extraordinary abilities and extraordinary experiences.
Prepared Spell Retention: Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind.
If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. A wizard in full plate with access to all the magic you can imagine would be even more broken -- as it is now it s still the best class after 4th level.
Those who engage in the study of magic usually aspire to connect with unseen realms, tapping into the potential for extraordinary abilities and extraordinary experiences. The learning of magic is not confined to a specific culture or tradition. Different cultures have their own systems and beliefs surrounding magic, which are passed down through generations.
Arcane vs. Divine
I'm not talking about the roleplaying interpretations of each magic, because that's going to change with each setting. What I mean to ask is this: What is the mechanical difference between the two magic types?
At a cursory glance, arcane magic is capable of "moving mountains." Its effects are overt, distinguishable, and often flamboyant. In raw damage vs. damage for the blasting type (an inferior version of spellcasting) arcane magic always wins, often with twice the damage capacity. Divine magic is more subtle, and has access to healing magic.
Except that's not really the case. As a primary divine caster, Druids are very near to Wizards/Sorcerers in terms of magically making things happen. Druids move mountains, conjure beasts, and explode plants to entangle enemies. Bards are sort of like Druids in the same respect, relying on the more subtle aspects of magic to achieve their goals. Ignoring the fact that bards are capable of casting healing magic (from it's offshoot of the druid class), Bardic magic hardly seems par for classification as arcane.
This is all pretty confusing to me, since arcanists suffer heavy drawbacks in comparison to their divine companions. Few know their entire spell list (beguiler, dread necromancer, & warmage being the exception), and all suffer heavy penalties to their spellcasting capabilities with arcane spell failure. The problem with this, though, is that most of the "best," or most mechanically effective spells exist on both sides of the fence- or at least have mechanical substitutes (command vs. suggestion, entangle vs. web, shield vs. shield of faith).
So really, what's the difference? What question do developers ask when they see a spell that allows them to allot it to one of the spellcasting classes, other than thinking "it's leafy/elemental, so give it to the druids" or "I could see merlin doing this, give it to the wizards"?
The biggest - and only absolute - difference is that divine magic comes from a divine source (a god, a philosophy, nature. ) and arcane magic doesn't.
And the way I see it, spells are put on spell lists mostly on a "does it fit the concept" basis. There probably is some balancing, usually on a concept level, meaning they don't do the "can do all sorts of magic perfectly" concept.
Concerning mechanically substitutes:
Command isn't nearly as good as suggestion (command lasts for one round, and even greater command only lasts a couple of rounds, and you get a save each round), and shield is very different from shield of faith (shield bonus versus deflection bonus, personal versus touch).
Note that while wizards might not be able to wear armour without messing up their spellcasting (unless they stick to light armour and get feats), they have magic at their disposal that can make their armour class almost irrelevant.
Plus, except for the "cannot heal", the wizard's spell list is extremely versatile in general. They can protect. They can buff. They can hex, they cann destroy, they can kill, they can dominate, they can deceive.
Sean FitzSimon wrote:What's the difference?
I'm not talking about the roleplaying interpretations of each magic, because that's going to change with each setting. What I mean to ask is this: What is the mechanical difference between the two magic types?
Divine magic basically always comes with a code of conduct attached. Violate the code, your magic goes away - for a time. They often have a hierarchy they have to answer to. Arcanists never have this problem - they do what they want, when they want, how they want. This might not come up in every campaign, so it's tempting to call it a 'roleplaying interpretation', but there _is_ a defined mechanic for clerics and druids losing their powers.
I think a lot of GMs are pretty lenient with players about it too. Being a cleric or druid shouldn't always be 'don't do X and Y' but also 'DO this and that' as well. Divine casters should always have strong convictions and motivations, or they wouldn't have their magic at all (IMO).
Divine magic is better at dealing with positive/negative energies - healing/restoration and necromancy, where arcane magic is better at using elemental damage (fire/cold/acid/sonic/etc.). Divine magic is better at summoning (or, at least, friendly summoning), while arcane magic is better at dimensional movement (especially astral/ethereal/shadow). Arcane is also better at illusion.
Personally I never really understood the arcane/divine separation. Not from a flavour point of view and not from a strictly mechanical point of view either. I mean. using Helic's examples, Clerics get healing, sure (which should be Necromancy. ) but Wizards get Ray of Enfeeblement, Enervation, etc. and Clerics and Druids alike get some pretty good blasting spells, especially of fire and lightning.
Well, there's a reason I love Arcana Unearthed/Evolved's magic system, I guess, and that is in large part because it gets rid of the arbitrary arcane/divine divide. Instead it splits spells up into "Simple" (things most people with a smattering of magic can cast), "Complex" (things only the dedicated spellcasters can cast), and "Exotic" (very rare spells).
Helic has the right of it - Divine magic has strings attached, and at the other end of those strings is a god. On the plus side, you don't have to be as precise with divine magic: it's your intent that matters more than the precise way you do things. Hence the lack of arcane spell failure.
Arcane magic, on the other hand, has to be precise because you are taking the reigns of the forces of the universe personally.
Bardic magic is really on the cusp of divine and arcane - they are dabblers who pick up a little here and a little there; a prayer from this place and an incantation from that. Most importantly, though, they don't get their power from homage to any particular god. They can pull off healing but they are by no means expert at it.
It's all about balance.
It's all metagame reasons.
The Fluff stuff: Divine comes from Deities with strings attached, Arcane casting methodology is hindered with armor, etc., is all a result of balancing the game over the years.
Think about it -- if you're inventing D&D back in the 70s and coming up with spells, what happens if you only give Druids nature spells, or clerics healing spells? What if wizards really could do everything?
You would create an unbalanced magic system. A wizard in full plate with access to all the magic you can imagine would be even more broken -- as it is now it's still the best class after 4th level.
A druid in that kind of system would be useless in a fight -- the core function of the D&D game. Same with a cleric.
You have to come up with some reasons to diversify the cleric and druid while toning down the wizard -- for metagame reasons.
Think about it -- if you're inventing D&D back in the 70s and coming up with spells, what happens if you only give Druids nature spells, or clerics healing spells? What if wizards really could do everything?
Ancient civilizations like the Egyptians, Greeks, and Babylonians had their respective magical systems. Similarly, Asian cultures such as China and India have rich magical traditions with their own unique approaches. In contemporary society, there are numerous paths for individuals to pursue the learning of magic. This includes studying established magical systems such as Wicca, Hermeticism, ceremonial magic, and witchcraft. Many people also choose to explore their own personal connection to magic, drawing from various sources and blending different elements to create their own magical practice. The learning of magic involves both theoretical and practical aspects. It requires a deep understanding of symbolism, correspondences, ritual, and meditation. Practitioners often spend years acquiring this knowledge through extensive reading, research, and study. They may also seek guidance from experienced mentors or join magical orders and communities to enhance their learning and share experiences. Alongside the acquisition of knowledge, the learning of magic also necessitates experiential practice. This involves performing rituals, casting spells, and engaging in divination to develop a personal connection to the energies and entities of the magical realm. Regular practice helps to refine skills, cultivate intuition, and deepen one's understanding of the unseen forces at play. Furthermore, the learning of magic is a transformative journey. It demands self-reflection, personal growth, and a commitment to ethical principles. Many magical traditions emphasize the importance of cultivating virtues such as wisdom, compassion, and integrity. The responsible use of magic requires practitioners to consider the potential consequences of their actions and to seek harmony with natural and cosmic forces. In conclusion, the learning of magic is a multifaceted and profound endeavor. It encompasses the exploration of ancient knowledge, the development of personal practice, and the cultivation of ethical values. Whether for personal empowerment, spiritual growth, or a desire to understand the mysteries of existence, the pursuit of magical knowledge offers a transformative and enriching path for those who venture into its realm..
Reviews for "The Wonders of Wizardry: Learning the Craft of Magic"
1. Jane - 1/5 stars - I was really disappointed with "Wlleaprnig of Magic". The storyline was confusing and poorly developed. The characters lacked depth and felt one-dimensional. The writing style was also quite clunky and hard to follow. Overall, I struggled to stay engaged with the story and felt like it was a waste of my time.
2. Mark - 2/5 stars - "Wlleaprnig of Magic" had potential, but it fell short for me. The concept was interesting, but the execution left much to be desired. The pacing was uneven, with slow parts dragging on and action-packed moments feeling rushed. The dialogue was often clichéd and forced, making it hard to connect with the characters. While there were some intriguing ideas, the overall execution was lackluster.
3. Sarah - 2/5 stars - As a fan of fantasy novels, I was excited to read "Wlleaprnig of Magic", but unfortunately, it didn't live up to my expectations. The world-building was weak, leaving me with little sense of the setting or the rules of magic. The plot lacked originality and felt predictable. The characters were forgettable and their motivations were unclear. I wanted to like this book, but it just didn't resonate with me.