# There needs to be a 4th spell list.



## Frozen_Heart (Sep 30, 2022)

So with the new UA, Bards are now keyed to the arcane spell list, but are only able to take divination, enchantment, illusion, and transmutation spells. This has resulting in them losing a huge number of thematic and iconic spells which really do suit a bard, as well as gaining many which don't suit it. In order to gain any more of its iconic spells under the current system, it would end up with even more spells which are traditionally wizard spells.

A few examples of 'bard themed' spells which have been lost: animal friendship, heroism, calm emotions, enhance ability, and speak with dead. 

In pathfinder 2e, there is an 'occult' power source used by bards and witches, and something similar could definitely work here. Classic bard spells like vicious mockery and hideous laughter suit it perfectly. The name could be something different of course, but I really do think that it would help the bard spell list feel more 'bardy' than what we have now.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2022)

There needs to be 6-7 spell lists.

Arcane
Bardic
Divine
Elemental
Primal
Psionic
Shadow

If "Everything is a spell" then spell lists need to feel more special.


----------



## Delazar (Sep 30, 2022)

I also want a Martial spell list! Down with maneuvers, give me Final Fantasy Limit Breaks!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

No. Arcane, divine and primal are fine.
Bards get a small selection of divine spells that are always prepared. I think they could also get the few low level primal spells they just lost back with a similar feature.
Maxbe give a choice of divine or primal when chosing the level 2 feature. 

I do however have the feeling they want to protect the ranger niche a bit more.

Coming from 2e, the bard somehow feels more bardy to me as in 2014 5e.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. Arcane, divine and primal are fine.
> Bards get a small selection of divine spells that are always prepared. I think they could also get the few low level primal spells they just lost back with a similar feature.
> Maxbe give a choice of divine or primal when chosing the level 2 feature.
> 
> ...



And I hate bards being forced to have all their healing spells prepared constantly. Healing bard was one potential flavour in 5e, but there were options which didn't have healing at all. This is just pigeonholing them and forcing them into this particular niche.

To me, this Bard is feeling more like a wizard with a guitar than an actual bard.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> And I hate bards being forced to have all their healing spells prepared constantly. Healing bard was one potential flavour in 5e, but there were options which didn't have healing at all. This is just pigeonholing them and forcing them into this particular niche.




I can see what you mean. I think they don't need auto prepare them and just have them available.

On a different note, I don't like seplls prepared = spell slots. Takes aways freedom. Especially at lower levels, this feels unnecessarily restricting.

Why not stay with spells prepared = stat bonus + level, or maybe going with the trend: proficiency bonus + level.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Sep 30, 2022)

They should try just having a list for each class. For some reason it feels like that would work just fine...


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 30, 2022)

There should at least, IMHO, be _*Psionic*_ (or something akin to it: i.e., PF2's _*Occultic*_) added as a spell list. 



Benjamin Olson said:


> They should try just having a list for each class. For some reason it feels like that would work just fine...



I'm not really a fan of it. PF2 has demonstrated that one of the major benefits to this system is that when you adding new spells to the game, you are really only worried about adding spells to about 4 spell lists that are shared between classes. That makes it easier to manage than having to determine whether each class gets access to a spell or not and then writing it out for each. That likewise helps reduce word count and redundant layout. This also makes it easier when adding new classes or options to the game. You can point them to the appropriate spell list rather than having to make a unique for the class.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Sep 30, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not really a fan of it. PF2 has demonstrated that one of the major benefits to this system is that when you adding new spells to the game, you are really only worried about adding spells to about 4 spell lists that are shared between classes. That makes it easier to manage than having to determine whether each class gets access to a spell or not and then writing it out for each. That likewise helps reduce word count and redundant layout. This also makes it easier when adding new classes or options to the game. You can point them to the appropriate spell list rather than having to make a unique for the class.



If D&D is going the direction of having spells added so frequently and so many classes that they can't just think about which of the relevant classes should get a new spell when they make one then I'll have bigger issues than I do with the silly three list system.

More to your point perhaps, they are still 100% going to be thinking about which classes should get things, they just now have to do it locked into how each class interacts with generalized lists and needing to work around that commitment.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 30, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> If D&D is going the direction of having spells added so frequently and so many classes that they can't just think about which of the relevant classes should get a new spell when they make one then I'll have bigger issues than I do with the silly three list system.
> 
> More to your point perhaps, they are still 100% going to be thinking about which classes should get things, they just now have to do it locked into how each class interacts with generalized lists and needing to work around that commitment.



I'm not sure how you can't see how this is not easier for designers and players.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

IMHO, there only needs to be one spell list.

Spells.

all casters have access to all spells.

put spells know at sorcerer level -1 spell.

every subclass gets 2 spells know for each level from cantrips to 5th level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

Horwath said:


> IMHO, there only needs to be one spell list.
> 
> Spells.
> 
> ...




No. That is too much.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. That is too much.



Agreed - that creates options paralysis. Might as well play GURPS…


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Agreed - that creates options paralysis. Might as well play GURPS…



shush!
Slowly...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 30, 2022)

As a reminder... if there are any spells that Bards cannot have access to (without using their Magical Secrets) due to this new design idea of spell groups (rather than individual spell lists per class)... make sure you bang that gong HARD on the surveys.  They really need to know if there are so-called "iconic" Bard spells that they can't get anymore so that perhaps they go back to individual class spell lists.

And this is true across the board for any of the classes-- if/when the Sorcerer gets released and they only are given access to a couple of the Arcane schools (like Abjuration, Divination, Evocation, and Transmutation), all the Sorcerer stands need to make sure to let them know that's not an acceptable condensation.

If no one mentions in the Surveys that they think classes are missing spells due to the spell group / spell school divisions... WotC will never try going back to the old way to see if that's more popular.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 30, 2022)

I definitely think they see the healing spells as auto-prepared is a feature, not a bug - that it's built in there to make sure that Bards will fill that healer role for the party without you accidentally ending up with a bunch of spells that do you no good when your friend is bleeding out and the party lacks a Cleric, Paladin, or Druid.

But I'd note that these are a replacement for Songs of Rest (even called Songs of RESToration) - so yeah, while swapped a Bard-unique healing feature for auto-preparing healing spells, it feels like a net-loss because Bards could have prepped those healing spells previously if they wanted, or else could have just healed with Songs of Rest and prepped Speak with Animals, instead…

I would note that Bards DO get spells like Speak with Animals later on - via Magical Secrets. But 11th level is way too late. College of Lore used to provide early access to Magical Secrets, but I presume they wanted to emphasise the knowledge and cunning part of Lore Bards over just making them be better at what Bards already do (that's now really the College of Eloquence, anyway). And also, the wider spell lists and the ability to draw any spell from the spell list at the end of the LR means that Magical Secrets is far more powerful than when it just let you add a few more Spells known without easy swapping out.

If a Bard subclass focused on Speak with Animals or other iconic spells - perhaps a "Primal Skald" type Bard a la that one 4th Edition Paragon Path - then I think I could handle that loss for other subclassed Bards until 11th level. But I'm sure there are plenty of folks who dislike the loss of versatility there. For example, One D&D's College of Spirits Bard better darn have access to Speak with Dead from an early level. Give it as a level 3 subclass feature?


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 30, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> College of Lore used to provide early access to Magical Secrets, but I presume they wanted to emphasise the knowledge and cunning part of Lore Bards over just making them be better at what Bards already do (that's now really the College of Eloquence, anyway). And also, the wider spell lists and the ability to draw any spell from the spell list at the end of the LR means that Magical Secrets is far more powerful than when it just let you add a few more Spells known without easy swapping out.



Couldn't they give the Lore Bard a 6th level Magical Secrets that only expands their choices into the Arcane spell list outside of their restricted schools of magic?


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 30, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Couldn't they give the Lore Bard a 6th level Magical Secrets that only expands their choices into the Arcane spell list outside of their restricted schools of magic?



It was always weird that Lord Bard got a feature EARLY. 

But if it was just arcane spells, I could easily see them just say, "you can now prepare Arcane spells of any spell school" and not call it Magical Secrets. Perhaps lean into the term Arcane, which essentially means Magical Secrets anyway?


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 30, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not really a fan of it. PF2 has demonstrated that one of the major benefits to this system is that when you adding new spells to the game, you are really only worried about adding spells to about 4 spell lists that are shared between classes. That makes it easier to manage than having to determine whether each class gets access to a spell or not and then writing it out for each. That likewise helps reduce word count and redundant layout. This also makes it easier when adding new classes or options to the game. You can point them to the appropriate spell list rather than having to make a unique for the class.



Yes, having shared lists is slightly easier than having unique ones (very slightly, I'd argue). But a bit of extra effort in spell list creation is well worth it if it allows for more distinctive and thematic classes. Especially since the majority of that work is already done and the resulting system works well.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. Arcane, divine and primal are fine.
> Bards get a small selection of divine spells that are always prepared. I think they could also get the few low level primal spells they just lost back with a similar feature.
> Maxbe give a choice of divine or primal when chosing the level 2 feature.
> 
> ...



1DD Ranger has a niche?


----------



## Pedantic (Sep 30, 2022)

Not to be that guy, but I really think LevelUp got this one right. I'd you're going to do spell lists, do a lot of small thematic ones and allow for overlap. 

Then you can hand out access to "law" or "communication" spells in addition to class lists in archetypes.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> Not to be that guy, but I really think LevelUp got this one right. I'd you're going to do spell lists, do a lot of small thematic ones and allow for overlap.
> 
> Then you can hand out access to "law" or "communication" spells in addition to class lists in archetypes.



I'll be that guy all day.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 1DD Ranger has a niche?




Primal spells.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> Not to be that guy, but I really think LevelUp got this one right. I'd you're going to do spell lists, do a lot of small thematic ones and allow for overlap.
> 
> Then you can hand out access to "law" or "communication" spells in addition to class lists in archetypes.




I think the lists in LevelUp are a bit too much. And annoying, because you have to look over each single spell.
Really something I don't care about.

Rather use the 8 classic schools an be fine with it.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 30, 2022)

The generalized spell lists are going to run into the Psion Problem which is different from the Artificer Problem which they're currently accounting for, as in what are they going to do about new spells if and when the Psion becomes a class. I think one way to fix the Psion Problem is to have a 4th spell list, and to make it the one that Bards use. It can be called "Psionic" or "Occult" or whatever, but it needs to be one for Bards to use, and then the main one for Psions later on when they become a class.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Primal spells.



Druids cast primal spells.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 30, 2022)

Delazar said:


> I also want a Martial spell list! Down with maneuvers, give me Final Fantasy Limit Breaks!



laugh all we want it might be the only way to get martial exploits into a game made by WotC


----------



## Pedantic (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think the lists in LevelUp are a bit too much. And annoying, because you have to look over each single spell.
> Really something I don't care about.




In practice, WotC is in a better place to deal with this through online tools. If spell schools are primarily keywords, then you're just selecting the list of relevant spells for your class choices and getting a list of what you have at each level.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Sep 30, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> The generalized spell lists are going to run into the Psion Problem which is different from the Artificer Problem which they're currently accounting for, as in what are they going to do about new spells if and when the Psion becomes a class.



Just don't have Psions as spellcasters. Problem solved!


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> In practice, WotC is in a better place to deal with this through online tools. If spell schools are primarily keywords, then you're just selecting the list of relevant spells for your class choices and getting a list of what you have at each level.



Level Up has online tools too.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up has online tools too.




Online tools are nice. And I use them. But I also want it to work out of a book.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Online tools are nice. And I use them. But I also want it to work out of a book.



And it works out of the book.  I use the book all the time.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> laugh all we want it might be the only way to get martial exploits into a game made by WotC



Are you reading the Sword World (Japanese TRPG) thread? That's more or less what they do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> And it works out of the book.  I use the book all the time.




I only read it and have not played it. So maybe I am wrong.
But for OneDnD it also has to feel accessible. That is one thing LevelUp was under way lower pressure, as it should be an advanced game with more depth in character building.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Sep 30, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> I definitely think they see the healing spells as auto-prepared is a feature, not a bug - that it's built in there to make sure that Bards will fill that healer role for the party without you accidentally ending up with a bunch of spells that do you no good when your friend is bleeding out and the party lacks a Cleric, Paladin, or Druid.



Since when are bards meant to be the dedicated party healer?

At this point their identity is so far removed from their early incarnations in 2e and 3e that it's unrecognisable. What happened to that jack of all trades, dabble in skills and magic while not being the master of either class from earlier editions?

Now they feel more like wizards with healing and guitars.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 30, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Since when are bards meant to be the dedicated party healer?
> 
> At this point their identity is so far removed from their early incarnations in 2e and 3e that it's unrecognisable. What happened to that jack of all trades, dabble in skills and magic while not being the master of either class from earlier editions?
> 
> Now they feel more like wizards with healing and guitars.



Sort of happened in 4e, when they were given the role of "Leader" that Clerics got.

It solved the Jack of All Trades but Master of None problem the Bard got.

It's sort of stuck in 5e, Bards are mostly supposed to be a support class even if they can dabble in other things like control or second-line melee combat.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Druids cast primal spells.



And clerics cast divine spells. But paladins still exist.

Being a primal themed half caster with a focus of archery and hunters mark (which should totally be an ability not a spell) is enough to get them holding their own niche.

We've had a thread every 2 weeks with "swordmagewen" for the last 8 years. We don't need the same with ranger.


----------



## Haplo781 (Sep 30, 2022)

Delazar said:


> I also want a Martial spell list! Down with maneuvers, give me Final Fantasy Limit Breaks!


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I only read it and have not played it. So maybe I am wrong.
> But for OneDnD it also has to feel accessible. That is one thing LevelUp was under way lower pressure, as it should be an advanced game with more depth in character building.



True.  accessibility is a much lower priority for me, to the point where WotC catering to it actively works against my experience with them.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> And clerics cast divine spells. But paladins still exist.
> 
> Being a primal themed half caster with a focus of archery and hunters mark (which should totally be an ability not a spell) is enough to get them holding their own niche.
> 
> We've had a thread every 2 weeks with "swordmagewen" for the last 8 years. We don't need the same with ranger.



If they made the ranger actually match (or even approach) the fantasy archetype in pop culture, you wouldn't have this argument.


----------



## Pedantic (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up has online tools too.



Oh totally and during that brief outage I very much missed a5e.tools, especially for paladin archetype spells in this context, but WotC clearly has them beat with Beyond.

Really though, atomized spell lists actually make even more sense for WotC's strategy pushing online tools, because they make it even more convenient to use their character generator.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> If they made the ranger actually match (or even approach) the fantasy archetype in pop culture, you wouldn't have this argument.



Trouble is, everyone has their own idea of ranger more than any other class. You have:


Aragorn style ranger. Not really magical, but a pure martial with lots of survival abilities. (could be a fighter subclass)
Drizzt Duel wielder.
Sneaky Forest Marksman. (scout rogue does this)
Beast Tamer (should be its own thing with a summoner class imo).
And finally the primal half caster.

And these features are just so broad that it ends up trying to do them all, and satisfying no 'what ranger should be' camps at all.



Kobold Avenger said:


> Sort of happened in 4e, when they were given the role of "Leader" that Clerics got.
> 
> It solved the Jack of All Trades but Master of None problem the Bard got.
> 
> It's sort of stuck in 5e, Bards are mostly supposed to be a support class even if they can dabble in other things like control or second-line melee combat.



I've always thought that the best way to deal with a class being two half things is to make both halves work together at the same time. Paladin is the perfect example of this. On paper it sounds like it's just half a cleric and half a fighter. As implemented it feels like its own thing, and is able to focus its divine flavoured abilities into its weapon strikes and auras.

Imo something like this should have happened with bard, keeping it jack of all trades, but allowing its abilities to work in sync with each other. However that ship has sailed almost 2 editions ago now. And it sounds like bard is just going more and more into this full casting priest niche.

Would probably be better to make a dedicated jack of all trades class than to try to drag bard back from where it is now.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 30, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Trouble is, everyone has their own idea of ranger more than any other class. You have:
> 
> 
> Aragorn style ranger. Not really magical, but a pure martial with lots of survival abilities. (could be a fighter subclass)
> ...



Except Aragorn also has _healing hands_ like a Paladin, and a lot of Ranger spells are only semi-spells - that is to say, they're like magical berries or enchantments of their arrows and whatnot. So it's actually a lot closer to Aragorn as is than one might think…


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 30, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Since when are bards meant to be the dedicated party healer?
> 
> At this point their identity is so far removed from their early incarnations in 2e and 3e that it's unrecognisable. What happened to that jack of all trades, dabble in skills and magic while not being the master of either class from earlier editions?



In D&Done the class you're looking for that does that is the ranger...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Except Aragorn also has _healing hands_ like a Paladin, and a lot of Ranger spells are only semi-spells - that is to say, they're like magical berries or enchantments of their arrows and whatnot. So it's actually a lot closer to Aragorn as is than one might think…



Except that "The hands of a king are the hands of a healer" is a metaphor and it's not almost instant the way a paladin is.

And the problem with the ranger isn't that they get _some_ coincidental spells. It's that the class is being drowned in them to the point it's hard to see anything else. What the ranger needs if we're to walk this path is a "spell dump" the way the paladin in practice might have a ludicrous number of spell slots but actually just uses most of them to smite before third level spells.


----------



## Krachek (Oct 1, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 1DD Ranger has a niche?



No he have a group!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> If they made the ranger actually match (or even approach) the fantasy archetype in pop culture, you wouldn't have this argument.



D&D practically invented the fantasy archetype of the Paladin. It can do so with the Ranger, too.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> D&D practically invented the fantasy archetype of the Paladin. It can do so with the Ranger, too.



That was nearly 50 years ago.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That was nearly 50 years ago.



And people will still be playing D&D in 50 years.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> D&D practically invented the fantasy archetype of the Paladin. It can do so with the Ranger, too.



How can D&D invent the archetype of the ranger? Paladins were more or less made up from very obscure sources. There are three major differences here:

Aragorn both predates D&D and is famous
Rangers are a _real world_ thing - both Forest Rangers and Army Rangers.
The All Magic Ranger wouldn't be invented by D&D so much as D&D _fifth edition_. Or by D&Done.
No I don't believe D&D can invent the archetype of the ranger.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Oct 1, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> In D&Done the class you're looking for that does that is the ranger...



Might just make a better bard by picking fighter, then multiclassing rogue. Then taking a bit of druid.

Just kidding. But if I did play Bard I'd probably go 50% bard 50% rogue to get it playing closer to what I consider a jack of all trades class should be.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Oct 1, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Except that "The hands of a king are the hands of a healer" is a metaphor and it's not almost instant the way a paladin is.
> 
> And the problem with the ranger isn't that they get _some_ coincidental spells. It's that the class is being drowned in them to the point it's hard to see anything else. What the ranger needs if we're to walk this path is a "spell dump" the way the paladin in practice might have a ludicrous number of spell slots but actually just uses most of them to smite before third level spells.



Hmm DnD 5e has 3rd casters with a base class being a pure martial.

I wonder if it can be done the other way. A subclass downgrading the spellcasting to a 1/3 caster, while going much more heavily on the non magical abilities it gives.


----------



## Weiley31 (Oct 1, 2022)

Just bring back _ALL_ of the 4E Power sources. We're up to three so far. What harm would it do to sprinkle in a few more?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 1, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> Just bring back _ALL_ of the 4E Power sources. We're up to three so far. What harm would it do to sprinkle in a few more?



I'd like the monster roles back. Those were super useful.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> Just bring back _ALL_ of the 4E Power sources. We're up to three so far. What harm would it do to sprinkle in a few more?



Four. Arcane, divine, martial, and primal (druid, ranger, barbarian). Shadow was never worthwhile (and we have two shadow subclasses) and 5e is doing interesting things with psionics.

They just need to make martial more of a power source and less of a default.


----------



## Weiley31 (Oct 1, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Shadow was never worthwhile



I think that was due to the fact that 4E only got like what, at most, two Shadow Power source classes and then 4E bit the dust.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> I think that was due to the fact that 4E only got like what, at most, two Shadow Power source classes and then 4E bit the dust.



Two different Assassin classes, vampire, binder, blackguard. And the death domain warpriest, gloom pact hexblade, and necromancer and nethermancer wizard schools. And arguably the dark pact warlock should be included.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 1, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> I think that was due to the fact that 4E only got like what, at most, two Shadow Power source classes and then 4E bit the dust.



Shadow wasn't a particularly well thought out concept. It's basically "spoopy magic" which is just a subset of arcane.

It could work in a hypothetical 4e that slaughtered even more sacred cows and said "arcane magic isn't a thing anymore, everyone draws their power from a specific plane" and then defined what Fey magic vs. Shadow magic vs. Elemental magic can do.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Shadow wasn't a particularly well thought out concept. It's basically "spoopy magic" which is just a subset of arcane.
> 
> It could work in a hypothetical 4e that slaughtered even more sacred cows and said "arcane magic isn't a thing anymore, everyone draws their power from a specific plane" and then defined what Fey magic vs. Shadow magic vs. Elemental magic can do.



I honestly think that power sources were a worthwhile distraction but are something that should be left in 4e (at least as long as martial characters are allowed to go above and beyond). They are very good for _codifying_ things and some of what came out of them was good. But neither stories nor the real world are as clear cut as that.

That said they had beneficial effects for things like the barbarian and sorcerer that had no clear identity before 4e.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 1, 2022)

My recommendation -  Fix the lack of iconic bard spells through subclass spell list. Its what Tasha's did to fix Sorcerer, it can work here.

The Lore bard is already getting Arcane, Nature (primal) and Religion (divine) skills - give them a subclass list that gives them the option to take, say Bane (divine) or Faerie Fire (primal) as first circle spells, Enhance Ability (divine) or Silence (primal) for second circle, Speak with Plants (primal) at third circle, etc.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 1, 2022)

Mephista said:


> My recommendation -  Fix the lack of iconic bard spells through subclass spell list. Its what Tasha's did to fix Sorcerer, it can work here.
> 
> The Lore bard is already getting Arcane, Nature (primal) and Religion (divine) skills - give them a subclass list that gives them the option to take, say Bane (divine) or Faerie Fire (primal) as first circle spells, Enhance Ability (divine) or Silence (primal) for second circle, Speak with Plants (primal) at third circle, etc.



I think doing it through schools rather than tags is an attempt to put the cart before the horse. That a well designed class will have a custom spell list that will correlate with but not be a perfect match for any school that isn't named after that class.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 7, 2022)

*CRAZY IDEA*​
ARCANE- Universal Magic for Artificers and Wizards
DIVINE- Outer Planes for Clerics and Paladins
ELEMENTAL- Inner Planar Magic for Sorcerers 
MENTAL- Transitive Planar and Far Realm Magic for Bards, Truenamers, and Psions
PRIMAL- Material Planar Magic for Druids and Rangers
SHADOW- Corrupted Planar Magic for Warlocks and Shadomages


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> And I hate bards being forced to have all their healing spells prepared constantly. Healing bard was one potential flavour in 5e, but there were options which didn't have healing at all. This is just pigeonholing them and forcing them into this particular niche.
> 
> To me, this Bard is feeling more like a wizard with a guitar than an actual bard.



Bard is a wizard with a guitar. Ranger is a wizard with a bow. Neo-vancian casting is consuming every unique and interesting character feature and it bores me to tears.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Might just make a better bard by picking fighter, then multiclassing rogue. Then taking a bit of druid.








That said, I would rather see each class have their own distinct spell list. I mean, if we're getting hacks like "Arcane spells from these four schools plus these specific divine spells" as early as the core rules, that's a sign that the lists don't do what you want them to.

Another option would be to steal from Arcana Evolved, Monte Cook's alt-3e. AE used a similar scheme for spells as for weapons, splitting them into Simple, Complex, and Exotic spells combined with liberal sprinkling of various tags. All casters would have access to all Simple spells, and often something like "All complex psychic spells" or "All complex and exotic Air spells".


----------



## Staffan (Oct 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Since when are bards meant to be the dedicated party healer?



Since they got healing spells back in 2000? Of course, healing other than wands of CLW were so anemic in 3e that that barely counted, but still.

The more classes that can act as dedicated party healer, the better. No class should be necessary for adventuring, and that especially includes the cleric.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Since when are bards meant to be the dedicated party healer?
> 
> At this point their identity is so far removed from their early incarnations in 2e and 3e that it's unrecognisable. What happened to that jack of all trades, dabble in skills and magic while not being the master of either class from earlier editions?
> 
> Now they feel more like wizards with healing and guitars.




Except for the healing, the bard is very close to the 2e bard in playstyle and feel.
With half of the arcane list and prepared spells they are getting even closer.

The only thing I miss is additional magical secret at level 6 for the lore bard, so you can have fireball +1 from the arcane list.
I'd really want that back. The rest is more than cool.

Lets just forget the 3e bard...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

The easiest way I've found to not have your Bard feel like a "Wizard with a Guitar" or your Ranger feel like a "Wizard with a Bow" is to actually give your characters personalities that are not the same as the personalities you give your Wizards when you play them.

I have never once seen a Ranger at any of my tables feel like a "Wizard with a Bow" because nobody plays their Ranger like a Wizard.  Wizard characters tend to have personalities in one direction... Rangers have personalities, interests, and foci in a different one.  Out on adventure the Ranger character's attentions are on certain things, the Wizard's attentions are on other things.  During downtime the Wizards tend to do wizardly things, the Rangers do rangerly things.  And neither of those things are remotely similar. 

So even if a Ranger's class features are put in the PHB under the Spells mechanical format, when you are playing the game you can just do your Ranger actions like Ranger actions and don't emphasize the whole "I'M CASTING A SPELL, LOOK AT MY WIGGLY FINGERS AND BOOMING VOICE SPEAKING IN A WEIRD ARCANE TONGUE!" thing.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The easiest way I've found to not have your Bard feel like a "Wizard with a Guitar" or your Ranger feel like a "Wizard with a Bow" is to actually give your characters personalities that are not the same as the personalities you give your Wizards when you play them.
> 
> I have never once seen a Ranger at any of my tables feel like a "Wizard with a Bow" because nobody plays their Ranger like a Wizard.  Wizard characters tend to have personalities in one direction... Rangers have personalities, interests, and foci in a different one.  Out on adventure the Ranger character's attentions are on certain things, the Wizard's attentions are on other things.  During downtime the Wizards tend to do wizardly things, the Rangers do rangerly things.  And neither of those things are remotely similar.
> 
> So even if a Ranger's class features are put in the PHB under the Spells mechanical format, when you are playing the game you can just do your Ranger actions like Ranger actions and don't emphasize the whole "I'M CASTING A SPELL, LOOK AT MY WIGGLY FINGERS AND BOOMING VOICE SPEAKING IN A WEIRD ARCANE TONGUE!" thing.



Except you're still wiggling your fingers and saying magic words.  Pretending you aren't doesn't change anything.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Except you're still wiggling your fingers and saying magic words.  Pretending you aren't doesn't change anything.



If you as a player at the table do not say your character is wiggling your fingers and saying magic words... and instead just narrate whatever the effects of the "spell" end up being as part of your Ranger action and roleplaying... then it doesn't matter whatever the "invisible background world" is that is occurring based on how the "mechanical rules of the game" are suggesting is happening.  Because you can change those mechanical rules and the narrative emphasis those mechanical rules are written to have.

What matters is what actually occurs at the table, not this invisible background world that you aren't actually playing or representing during the game.  And if your mind IS constantly on that invisible background world and what you're imagining is actually happening because of the way the rulebook has suggested the default narrative method sets things... that's on you.  WotC shouldn't waste their time trying to design the game trying to make you stop doing that.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you as a player at the table do not say your character is wiggling your fingers and saying magic words... and instead just narrate whatever the effects of the "spell" end up being as part of your Ranger action and roleplaying... then it doesn't matter whatever the "invisible background world" is that is occurring based on how the "mechanical rules of the game" are suggesting is happening.  Because you can change those mechanical rules and the narrative emphasis those mechanical rules are written to have.
> 
> What matters is what actually occurs at the table, not this invisible background world that you aren't actually playing or representing during the game.  And if your mind IS constantly on that invisible background world and what you're imagining is actually happening because of the way the rulebook has suggested the default narrative method sets things... that's on you.  WotC shouldn't waste their time trying to design the game trying to make you stop doing that.



Its still magic.  I know rules in general don't seem to be very important to you, but not everyone feels that way.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Might just make a better bard by picking fighter, then multiclassing rogue. Then taking a bit of druid.
> 
> Just kidding. But if I did play Bard I'd probably go 50% bard 50% rogue to get it playing closer to what I consider a jack of all trades class should be.



That is a fun build, even if I’d prefer the bard ditch the Jack of all trades idea, and lean more into the lore (and thus song, oration, etc) of the mythic bard. 

If any class should be a Jack of all trades, it’s the Ranger. 


Charlaquin said:


> Bard is a wizard with a guitar. Ranger is a wizard with a bow. Neo-vancian casting is consuming every unique and interesting character feature and it bores me to tears.



The fact they prepare spells makes them a wizard!? What!? 


UngeheuerLich said:


> Lets just forget the 3e bard...



The 3.5 Bard is one of the very few things I don’t want to forget from 3/.5e. 

I’d happily replace bardic inspiration with songs that you activate as a bonus action and last for 1 minute or longer and have an area effect like making your allies all do more damage or add a bonus to mental saves or move faster.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Its still magic.  I know rules in general don't seem to be very important to you, but not everyone feels that way.



If you don't wish to handwave it, that's fine.  You don't have to.  But you also just have to accept that WotC will do their designs the way they want to.  And if they do it such that they are insinuating "If you don't want magic then you WILL have to handwave it"... you either ignore the insinuation and play it with the magic you don't want, or you accept the idea of handwaving it and play it in the style you prefer even if it goes against what the book suggests is the default.

Speaking personally... I would much rather play the game in the style that I want.  So I will handwave all rules in the book that I don't like till the cows come home.  And I think anyone who doesn't do that is just setting themselves up to be miserable.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Except you're still wiggling your fingers and saying magic words.  Pretending you aren't doesn't change anything.



But I’m not. It’s just a limited resource driven special ability.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you don't wish to handwave it, that's fine.  You don't have to.  But you also just have to accept that WotC will do their designs the way they want to.  And if they do it such that they are insinuating "If you don't want magic then you WILL have to handwave it"... you either ignore the insinuation and play it with the magic you don't want, or you accept the idea of handwaving it and play it in the style you prefer even if it goes against what the book suggests is the default.
> 
> Speaking personally... I would much rather play the game in the style that I want.  So I will handwave all rules in the book that I don't like till the cows come home.  And I think anyone who doesn't do that is just setting themselves up to be miserable.



The more hand-waving you have to do, the less useful the book becomes, and the more money is wasted buying it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> But I’m not. It’s just a limited resource driven special ability.



That still follows all the spell rules.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That still follows all the spell rules.



Wholly irrelevant.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The 3.5 Bard is one of the very few things I don’t want to forget from 3/.5e.




No. You are right. Let it always remind us how not to build a class.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The fact they prepare spells makes them a wizard!? What!?



The fact that they access and cast spells the same way makes them same-y. That the way they access and cast spells is a spin on Vancian casting is what gives that same-y feel a particular D&D wizard vibe.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 7, 2022)

I have not read the full thread, so something like this might already be mentioned somewhere.

Having more unified spell lists can make things easier, *as long as you then do not create exceptions.*
2 of the 3 classes we have seen already have exceptions  saying you have access to list X and then listing parts of that list you don't have access to, or the subset you do have access to.
As soon as you do this you create class specific spell lists.

It is also harder for new players. 
So I have access to the wizard list but only spells that are of this school....
Goes to wizard lists looks at a few spells, had to go back to the page for his class having trouble remembering the names of the schools as to this new player the names of the spell schools are a new thing.
Player goes back and forth a few times.
Player grumbles why can't they just put a (b) next to the spell name if I can cast it as a bard.
Then goes online to get himself a list of spells the bard has access to that somebody else already made.
Maybe even printing it out and putting the bard spell list in the back of his PHB.

In my opinion the only way a person can think the access to list X with the following expiations is good design is if the designer assumes you will be using a character builder (presumably DnD beyond)  that will show you only the options available to you anyway, and you will never have to figure out if you have access to a spell manually in the book.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> The fact that they access and cast spells the same way makes them same-y. That the way they access and cast spells is a spin on Vancian casting is what gives that same-y feel a particular D&D wizard vibe.



Same is what most people want, right?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> I have not read the full thread, so something like this might already be mentioned somewhere.
> 
> Having more unified spell lists can make things easier, *as long as you then do not create exceptions.*
> 2 of the 3 classes we have seen already have exceptions  saying you have access to list X and then listing parts of that list you don't have access to, or the subset you do have access to.
> ...



We are rapidly getting to the point where I believe WotC is going to assume people make their characters online.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> The more hand-waving you have to do, the less useful the book becomes, and the more money is wasted buying it.



And how many rules is that?  How many rules do you have to not use before you no longer garner any use from the game?

Can't speak for anyone else... but seeing as how the game has thousands upon thousands of different rules and I only handwave a handful of them (as many as my houserule sheets have listed)... I have yet to even come close to the point where I think the D&D rulebooks were a waste of a purchase.

And in the meantime I play a game of D&D that I want... rather than play a version I don't and constantly complain about it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And how many rules is that?  How many rules do you have to not use before you no longer garner any use from the game?
> 
> Can't speak for anyone else... but seeing as how the game has thousands upon thousands of different rules and I only handwave a handful of them (as many as my houserule sheets have listed)... I have yet to even come close to the point where I think the D&D rulebooks were a waste of a purchase.
> 
> And in the meantime I play a game of D&D that I want... rather than play a version I don't and constantly complain about it.



I play a game of D&D I want.  I'm just sad that the IP owner that is practically all anyone talks about has moved and is continuing to move farther and farther away from that game.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Same is what most people want, right?



Apparently? I dunno, it isn’t what I want. And, you know, it’s frustrating seeing people pushing 5e in that direction when “all the classes play the same” was one of the most prominent critiques of 4e.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> The fact that they access and cast spells the same way makes them same-y. That the way they access and cast spells is a spin on Vancian casting is what gives that same-y feel a particular D&D wizard vibe.



This makes me feel a bit hopeless. Like, oh okay, we can’t improve anything if it involves making two things less arbitrarily different from eachother to absolutely no benefit. Great. 


Charlaquin said:


> Apparently? I dunno, it isn’t what I want. And, you know, it’s frustrating seeing people pushing 5e in that direction when “all the classes play the same” was one of the most prominent critiques of 4e.



But…known spells casting was _terrible. _It makes no sense to have difference for difference’s sake, when it means that one method just sucks. And why shouldn’t magic mostly work the same way at a basic level? 

The critique made no damn sense then and it makes no sense now. 

And they still aren’t even the same! The ranger isn’t learning spells in their travels, even though that would make sense. They’re more like a Druid than like a wizard, and even _then_ it’s one class feature in common. That’s it! The entire rest of the class has nothing at all in common beyond basic game math.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> We are rapidly getting to the point where I believe WotC is going to assume people make their characters online.



That's the goal if you are a cynic.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> But…known spells casting was _terrible. _It makes no sense to have difference for difference’s sake, when it means that one method just sucks. And why shouldn’t magic mostly work the same way at a basic level?
> 
> The critique made no damn sense then and it makes no sense now.



Especially considering people can still play Spells Known with the Ranger and Bard right now if they really want to in this packet... just by not changing out their spells every morning.

If your prepared spells remain the same every day and never change... they essentially become your Known spells.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Especially considering people can still play Spells Known with the Ranger and Bard right now if they really want to in this packet... just by not changing out their spells every morning.
> 
> If your prepared spells remain the same every day and never change... they essentially become your Known spells.



If you have ideal bunch of spell prepared, why bother changing them every day?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This makes me feel a bit hopeless. Like, oh okay, we can’t improve anything if it involves making two things less arbitrarily different from eachother to absolutely no benefit. Great.
> 
> But…known spells casting was _terrible. _It makes no sense to have difference for difference’s sake, when it means that one method just sucks. And why shouldn’t magic mostly work the same way at a basic level?



I don’t particularly care about known spells casting. I’m fine with moving past it. What I don’t like seeing is the gradual homogenization of character features into a single bland spellcasting mechanic.


doctorbadwolf said:


> The critique made no damn sense then and it makes no sense now.



Well, I agree it made no sense then at least.


doctorbadwolf said:


> And they still aren’t even the same! The ranger isn’t learning spells in their travels, even though that would make sense. They’re more like a Druid than like a wizard, and even _then_ it’s one class feature in common. That’s it! The entire rest of the class has nothing at all in common beyond basic game math.



Spellcasting isn’t one class feature though. It’s most of the features of every class that gets it, and in this UA it’s proportionally more of the Ranger’s features than it is in the PHB.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> That's the goal if you are a cynic.



I think I've proven by now that I am indeed a cynic.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Especially considering people can still play Spells Known with the Ranger and Bard right now if they really want to in this packet... just by not changing out their spells every morning.
> 
> If your prepared spells remain the same every day and never change... they essentially become your Known spells.



So it works if the player decides not to use an ability they have access to?  When has _ that_ ever worked?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I think I've proven by now that I am indeed a cynic.



I was gonna say!  LOL!

Right after you posted...



> We are rapidly getting to the point where I believe WotC is going to assume people make their characters online.




...my first though was "What, Micah, you _aren't_ already at that point?  What's taking you so long?!?"  Heh heh


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> So it works if the player decides not to use an ability they have access to?  When has _ that_ ever worked?



It works fine for anyone who doesn't have their ego tied up in "playing optimally".

If you want to Know Spells but the book offers to let you Prepare Spells... and that bothers you because now you have to force yourself to not switch up your spell list every morning in order to play with Known Spells... that's on you.  You are basically asking the designers to save you from yourself.  "You know, I WANT to play with Known Spells, but since the book is saying I can switch them out... I HAVE to switch them out!  I just HAVE to!  Even though I don't want to!  Why are the designers doing this to me?!?  Just force me to use Known Spells and I have never have to feel like I'm playing badly!"

As you can tell... I don't find that to be a cogent argument or one WotC needs to listen to all that much.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t particularly care about known spells casting. I’m fine with moving past it. What I don’t like seeing is the gradual homogenization of character features into a single bland spellcasting mechanic.



It's the same spellcasting mechanic it's been since 2014. What makes it bland now?
And like...I can kinda see this in something like the Bard's new songs of restoration, which I will be giving the lowest possible score and explaining why at length. I just don't see it with the ranger, at all. 



Charlaquin said:


> Well, I agree it made no sense then at least.



How can it make sense now, when the classes are still structurally more different than they were then?


Charlaquin said:


> Spellcasting isn’t one class feature though. It’s most of the features of every class that gets it, and in this UA it’s proportionally more of the Ranger’s features than it is in the PHB.



It's like half of the ranger, at most. It's definitely less, actually. Most of the ranger is other stuff. Hell, Hunter's Mark is _less_ part of spellcasting now, as it is now a way to turn spell slots into damage differently from the Paladin, and works markedly differently from anyone else that gets the spell. 

Like is the problem that classes share more spells in this playtest than in the current rules?


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you want to Know Spells but the book offers to let you Prepare Spells... and that bothers you because now you have to force yourself to not switch up your spell list every morning in order to play with Known Spells... that's on you.  You are basically asking the designers to save you from yourself.  "You know, I WANT to play with Known Spells, but since the book is saying I can switch them out... I HAVE to switch them out!  I just HAVE to!  Even though I don't want to!  Why are the designers doing this to me?!?  Just force me to use Known Spells and I have never have to feel like I'm playing badly!"



Because classes are assumed to be (nominally) balanced.  Every feature you don't use (especially a major one like spell swapping) takes up power budget that could have been used on an ability you actually get to use in game and fits your character better, thus making you better able to express your character's identity.  

That's one of the main reasons I mostly play with homebrew or just play classless; you can create a much closer mapping of your identity to the mechanics.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> It's the same spellcasting mechanic it's been since 2014. What makes it bland now?
> And like...I can kinda see this in something like the Bard's new songs of restoration, which I will be giving the lowest possible score and explaining why at length. I just don't see it with the ranger, at all.



It was bland then too, it’s just getting even more bland as the little points of differentiation are gradually disappearing.


doctorbadwolf said:


> How can it make sense now, when the classes are still structurally more different than they were then?



They’re _structurally_ more different now (though they are seemingly getting more structurally similar to each other in this playtest), but the way they _play_ is far more similar. That’s the thing, 4e had a unified power structure but the things it did with that structure were diverse (and they did eventually break that structure). 5e is practically the opposite - diverse structures with homogenous gameplay, and they may eventually erase that structural diversity.


doctorbadwolf said:


> It's like half of the ranger, at most. It's definitely less, actually. Most of the ranger is other stuff. Hell, Hunter's Mark is _less_ part of spellcasting now, as it is now a way to turn spell slots into damage differently from the Paladin, and works markedly differently from anyone else that gets the spell.



Hunter’s Mark was a cool change. The ranger has otherwise only lost features, even compared to Tasha’s, and gained nothing in exchange but more spells.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Like is the problem that classes share more spells in this playtest than in the current rules?



That’s a problem. It also seems like they’re move towards unifying the spell preparation structure across classes, which is also a problem. Also, 5e’s tendency to render every discrete power as a spell is (still) a problem.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Especially considering people can still play Spells Known with the Ranger and Bard right now if they really want to in this packet... just by not changing out their spells every morning.
> 
> If your prepared spells remain the same every day and never change... they essentially become your Known spells.



The problem is that if you do that and there's a reason to want other spells you could have in character because you've done your research (or it's just really obvious) essentially your character is playing like an idiot with a fixation. There's a huge difference between a character who doesn't do something that would significantly help their friends and team mates on a quest where their lives are on the line because they can't and one who doesn't do something because they don't want to.

Let's say that for whatever reason you know you will want to cross a body of water half a mile across in the next day or two and you're playing a 9th level ranger. The obvious way across for the whole party is Water Walk (which oddly appears to be only a Primal spell in the playtest packet) - but it is more magical than you visualise your ranger as being.

With a Spells Known ranger you simply don't know Water Walking. End of story.

With a Spells Prepared ranger if you have a long rest and you _don't_ prepare Water Walk you're That Guy. You know the one who's "Just Playing Their Character" when they grief the rest of the party through either deliberate incompetence or sabotage. Water Walking is something you absolutely could do in character if you never change your known spells - it's just you choose not to.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> It was bland then too, it’s just getting even more bland as the little points of differentiation are gradually disappearing.
> 
> They’re _structurally_ more different now (though they are seemingly getting more structurally similar to each other in this playtest), but the way they _play_ is far more similar. That’s the thing, 4e had a unified power structure but the things it did with that structure were diverse (and they did eventually break that structure). 5e is practically the opposite - diverse structures with homogenous gameplay, and they may eventually erase that structural diversity.



Eh, the gameplay is hardly homogenous. less diverse than 4e sure, but I think you're badly overstating the case, here.


Charlaquin said:


> Hunter’s Mark was a cool change. The ranger has otherwise only lost features, even compared to Tasha’s, and gained nothing in exchange but more spells.



What features did they lose, at least compared to the Tasha's Ranger? They swapped the tasha's deft explorer for expertise, which is a win, but still got the Roving stuff. I guess they know fewer languages. They have a new version of tireless, but that's hardly a loss. Nature's Veil is kinda dumb IMO but it's filling a spot that has always been some sort of "go stealth mode" feature that comes online vastly too late to matter. It's also a waste of a spell slot, even a first level one, IMO. I'm hoping they change that to the ability to hide the _party_, and I'll strongly recomend that in the survey, but even as is it's the same sort of mediocre feature they had before. 
Feral Senses is good, and not even described as really magical. I'd rather just get advantage of checks that rely on hearing or smell, like a wolf or other predatory beast, but I can't call it a loss. Foe Slayer is made marginally better by being lower level, so it's no worse than it was. 

So they lost Hide in Plain Sight? Good, it was one of their worst features. The only actual loss I can see is Land's Stride. I guess you could call Primal Awareness being missing a loss. It's not a good feature, but it added some flavor, I guess.


Charlaquin said:


> That’s a problem. It also seems like they’re move towards unifying the spell preparation structure across classes, which is also a problem. Also, 5e’s tendency to render every discrete power as a spell is (still) a problem.



I guess i just don't understand the mindset of that last part. They could render step of the wind as a spell unique to monks, and I'd not care. Why would it matter? it's a limited ability that makes the monk play differently from other classes. Great!

Between that and the idea of structural differences being important to preserve, we just have too different a mindset, I guess.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I think I've proven by now that I am indeed a cynic.



I'm a born and raised New Yorker. I'm a cynic since birth. The baby hospital was pumping numbers I tells ya. They lucky I couldn't count yet to reveal the scam..


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem is that if you do that and there's a reason to want other spells you could have in character because you've done your research (or it's just really obvious) essentially your character is playing like an idiot with a fixation. There's a huge difference between a character who doesn't do something that would significantly help their friends and team mates on a quest where their lives are on the line because they can't and one who doesn't do something because they don't want to.
> 
> Let's say that for whatever reason you know you will want to cross a body of water half a mile across in the next day or two and you're playing a 9th level ranger. The obvious way across for the whole party is Water Walk (which oddly appears to be only a Primal spell in the playtest packet) - but it is more magical than you visualise your ranger as being.
> 
> ...



Apparently that's our problem.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Oct 8, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> And I hate bards being forced to have all their healing spells prepared constantly. Healing bard was one potential flavour in 5e, but there were options which didn't have healing at all. This is just pigeonholing them and forcing them into this particular niche.
> 
> To me, this Bard is feeling more like a wizard with a guitar than an actual bard.



This is the precise reason why I'm in favor of a 4th spell list for Bards and Artificers. Occult is obviously the pf2e name so something different could be appropriate, perhaps Crafted? Mechanical? Artistry? I'd prefer something neutral to both classes.

I could see the argument for a psionics list as well, though I'd be hesitant to add more after that.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Oct 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> As a reminder... if there are any spells that Bards cannot have access to (without using their Magical Secrets) due to this new design idea of spell groups (rather than individual spell lists per class)... make sure you bang that gong HARD on the surveys.  They really need to know if there are so-called "iconic" Bard spells that they can't get anymore so that perhaps they go back to individual class spell lists.
> 
> And this is true across the board for any of the classes-- if/when the Sorcerer gets released and they only are given access to a couple of the Arcane schools (like Abjuration, Divination, Evocation, and Transmutation), all the Sorcerer stands need to make sure to let them know that's not an acceptable condensation.
> 
> If no one mentions in the Surveys that they think classes are missing spells due to the spell group / spell school divisions... WotC will never try going back to the old way to see if that's more popular.



Oh you're d%&$ skippy I'll be pitching a fit on the surveys if they pigeonhole the Sorcerer to limited spell schools like that. The bard and other hybrid classes are one thing, but as far as I'm concern the _main_ and arguably _only_ reason to even switch to a generic class list split is so that sorcerers gain access to as many spells as possible compared to the travesty they had before. Honestly I can't think of any other class that has a better argument for making "generic" lists over class lists.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2022)

If the three spell list system makes it to the final product I predict it will be the first thing to go next edition, and that it will make it more likely the next edition is a radically new game because of eroding enthusiasm for this 5.X line of games. There's just no way that it doesn't limit the ability to make spellcasting class thematic, while at the same time making spell selection more difficult. It's design to satisfy powergamers, people who think in taxonomies, and people who have achieved system mastery at the cost of everyone else. It will make it much easier for a veteran player to switch from playing a Warlock to a Wizard, but it will probably make the change far less interesting by the same token. 

Always having a new character build I'm pining for that I haven't gotten around to is one of the things that keeps me coming back for more 5e. But part of what makes that possible is being denied whatever I'm looking for in the next build in my current one. If every Arcane caster can try out all my Arcane caster spell desires then I'm probably going to be inclined to play about half as many different Arcane casters than I otherwise would. Making the game less welcoming to new players and less interesting for old ones to try new character builds in is a recipe for a dying game.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Oct 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Especially considering people can still play Spells Known with the Ranger and Bard right now if they really want to in this packet... just by not changing out their spells every morning.
> 
> If your prepared spells remain the same every day and never change... they essentially become your Known spells.




Yes, and no.  A "known spell" caster could keep their spells fixed except at level up if they want.

EXCEPT... that 5e :known spell casters: can wind up with only one 1st level spells if they REALLY wanted to and move all those spells to higher levels.  A 5e Bard could have up to 7 known 9th level spells. (3 new known spells at level 17-20, plus swapping out 1 lower level spell at the four levels)

Yes, that's as dumb as only knowing one 1st but the point remains that a 5e known caster has a different KIND of flexibility than these prepared spell casters. 

I _like_ the idea of the Bard/sorceror having the "right" mix of spells AND levels for _their_ play style and campaign. Maybe they like a lot of low level spells that upcast, maybe they focus on that useful 3rd-5th zone where you have several spell slots. Or you have the high level caster that is prone to having relevant 7th & 8th level spells without having to use their 9th on Wish to cast the spell they wish they had. (Pun intended)

this loses that feature and is "wizard-priest with a guitar".

Plus, I don't want to play a healer. Don't clutter my finite list of available spells with this. Some people do and thats fine but now all bards MUST be healers. If you could heal, but refuse, you are distinctly not a team player. My 5e bard has a smidgen of healing (1st level only) and a few scrolls. Are you hurt enough to blow a scroll? No? Then take a nap and I will play you a lullaby.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

kigmatzomat said:


> Yes, and no.  A "known spell" caster could keep their spells fixed except at level up if they want.
> 
> EXCEPT... that 5e :known spell casters: can wind up with only one 1st level spells if they REALLY wanted to and move all those spells to higher levels.  A 5e Bard could have up to 7 known 9th level spells. (3 new known spells at level 17-20, plus swapping out 1 lower level spell at the four levels)
> 
> ...



In the current rules, known spells is purely worse. The prepared casters can prepare spells of any level they can cast. You can have all 1st level spells one day and 2 per spell level the next. 

The new version it seems has to prepare spells in numbers and levels as shown on the Spellcasting table, which is terrible and foolish.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Oct 8, 2022)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> This is the precise reason why I'm in favor of a 4th spell list for Bards and Artificers. Occult is obviously the pf2e name so something different could be appropriate, perhaps Crafted? Mechanical? Artistry? I'd prefer something neutral to both classes.
> 
> I could see the argument for a psionics list as well, though I'd be hesitant to add more after that.



I'd rather it was bard, warlocks, and maybe a psion later on (though still torn on if that should be a sorcerer subclass).

Artificer has always had a strong focus on 'arcane' magic. It's never been focused on the occult mind altering stuff.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 8, 2022)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> This is the precise reason why I'm in favor of a 4th spell list for Bards and Artificers. Occult is obviously the pf2e name so something different could be appropriate, perhaps Crafted? Mechanical? Artistry? I'd prefer something neutral to both classes.
> 
> I could see the argument for a psionics list as well, though I'd be hesitant to add more after that.




I am not sure you need a separate spell list for that, but I do think song of healing should be a choice.
Where you can chose:
Song of healing : healing spells.
Song of battle : offensive buff spells
Song of defense : defensive buff spells.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 8, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Because classes are assumed to be (nominally) balanced.  Every feature you don't use (especially a major one like spell swapping) takes up power budget that could have been used on an ability you actually get to use in game and fits your character better, thus making you better able to express your character's identity.
> 
> That's one of the main reasons I mostly play with homebrew or just play classless; you can create a much closer mapping of your identity to the mechanics.



I do not believe the game is nearly that balanced on a knife edge that you seem to be suggesting here.  To think that any time a player chooses not to use a certain ability means that they are now playing "below their fighting weight" (to use an inaccurate analogy) and thus should be compensated somehow to get themselves back up in balance is not anything WotC has thought of or worry about.

Fighters get Heavy Armor proficiency-- if they don't use it, should they be able to replace it with another feature they do (and believe me, I've seen threads where some people have argued they should, and I disagree wholeheartedly)?  Spellcasters have dozens of spells they don't use.  Should they be able to strike those spells from their spells list and replace them with other features that they will?  Weapon-users have proficiency in hosts of weapons they will never pick up.  Should they be able to replace all of those with another feature they will?  Where does this nitpicking end?  And why is it WotC's job to make it easier for them?

At some point the game would become exactly as you seem to be playing and working yours (congrats, by the way, that's exactly the way I think people _should_ play their game, making it their own!)  Where every single little feature or ability is bought piecemeal to create the character you want.  Those kinds of game already exist and seem to do well... and if someone (such as yourself) decides to hammer and work D&D into a game that also works like those other games (like Gurps or Hero System)... more power to you and I'm glad it works for you!  But I do not think any of us could suggest that this is the design D&D should go or even would go.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 8, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem is that if you do that and there's a reason to want other spells you could have in character because you've done your research (or it's just really obvious) essentially your character is playing like an idiot with a fixation. There's a huge difference between a character who doesn't do something that would significantly help their friends and team mates on a quest where their lives are on the line because they can't and one who doesn't do something because they don't want to.
> 
> Let's say that for whatever reason you know you will want to cross a body of water half a mile across in the next day or two and you're playing a 9th level ranger. The obvious way across for the whole party is Water Walk (which oddly appears to be only a Primal spell in the playtest packet) - but it is more magical than you visualise your ranger as being.
> 
> ...



Exactly.  It's player ego.  It's not a game design flaw.

Which is fine for what it is... and if WotC decides to go back to Spells Known, then that's fine too.  But I personally do not believe placating player ego is a valid reason to give for the changing of game rules.  But that's just me.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 8, 2022)

kigmatzomat said:


> Plus, I don't want to play a healer. Don't clutter my finite list of available spells with this. Some people do and thats fine but now all bards MUST be healers. If you could heal, but refuse, you are distinctly not a team player. My 5e bard has a smidgen of healing (1st level only) and a few scrolls. Are you hurt enough to blow a scroll? No? Then take a nap and I will play you a lullaby.



My opinion is that this is a flaw of your table's dynamics and not a flaw of the game design.  If your table gets mad at you because you have the functionality to heal but choose not to based on character design and choice... then that's their problem and they have no right to insinuate it is yours.

Noe granted... you're still the one who has to deal with those asshats, so I can understand why you'd prefer the game just not put you in that situation... but "the other players are being asshats when I don't use a class feature I have" I personally suspect is not the strongest of rationales to make in the survey when the time comes.  But hey, what do I know?  Maybe it is?


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I do not believe the game is nearly that balanced on a knife edge that you seem to be suggesting here.  To think that any time a player chooses not to use a certain ability means that they are now playing "below their fighting weight" (to use an inaccurate analogy) and thus should be compensated somehow to get themselves back up in balance is not anything WotC has thought of or worry about.



Oh, I don't think 5e is anywhere close to balanced.  But inefficient characters simply aren't as fun at the table, for me.  Why would I want to stare at some unneeded trivia on my character sheet that means nothing to my character, simply because it came with my class?




> Fighters get Heavy Armor proficiency-- if they don't use it, should they be able to replace it with another feature they do (and believe me, I've seen threads where some people have argued they should, and I disagree wholeheartedly)?



Yes, absolutely.  The one time I had a character play a "Dex fighter", I compensated them for the unused heavy armor proficiency.  (I gave them Medium Armor Mastery instead.) 



> Spellcasters have dozens of spells they don't use.  Should they be able to strike those spells from their spells list and replace them with other features that they will?



Well, I much prefer specialized casters with just a few spells over the broad generalization of standard 5e casters, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. 



> Weapon-users have proficiency in hosts of weapons they will never pick up.  Should they be able to replace all of those with another feature they will?




Fair point.  If a player brought it to my attention that they really wanted to trade out their weapon proficiencies to specialize, I would compensate them.  Most martial types want the option to be able to use found magic weapons, though, since my games have fairly frequent and randomized items.



> Where does this nitpicking end?  And why is it WotC's job to make it easier for them?










> At some point the game would become exactly as you seem to be playing and working yours (congrats, by the way, that's exactly the way I think people _should_ play their game, making it their own!)  Where every single little feature or ability is bought piecemeal to create the character you want.  Those kinds of game already exist and seem to do well... and if someone (such as yourself) decides to hammer and work D&D into a game that also works like those other games (like Gurps or Hero System)... more power to you and I'm glad it works for you!  But I do not think any of us could suggest that this is the design D&D should go or even would go.



I like crunchy character building games plenty, but I've been arguing for a while now that D&D would work better _for its default playstyle_ if the game had limited options at the player end and encouraged fiction-based, diegetic character growth.

Basically, make standard D&D more like a Troika! or Electric Bastionland, with dozens of low-weight starting options and then unfettered abilities, gained during play, from there.   No real character building at all, pick an option and play.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> My opinion is that this is a flaw of your table's dynamics and not a flaw of the game design.  If your table gets mad at you because you have the functionality to heal but choose not to based on character design and choice... then that's their problem and they have no right to insinuate it is yours.



If on the other hand your entire group gets mad at your character because that character is not a team player and does not use the skills they have that have no long term cost to support their team in matters of like or death for that team then this is an entirely fair and reasonable response to a character being a selfish asshat. And if you get upset at everyone else calling your character a selfish asshat who refuses to support the rest of your team in life and death situations when they are able to do so because they are a selfish asshat who refuses to support their team in life and death situations when they are able to do so ... then that's on you for playing a selfish asshat.

Meanwhile the consequence of playing an asshat and table tension normally bleeds out into real world feelings. Not taking that into account is just foolish.


DEFCON 1 said:


> Noe granted... you're still the one who has to deal with those asshats, so I can understand why you'd prefer the game just not put you in that situation... but "the other players are being asshats when I don't use a class feature I have" I personally suspect is not the strongest of rationales to make in the survey when the time comes.  But hey, what do I know?  Maybe it is?



You aren't the one who has to deal with asshats if you refuse, in character, to use abilities you have in character. You are the one _playing_ an asshat.

And "This game encourages people to play as an asshat" is one of the strongest possible rationales to put in the survey.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 8, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> If on the other hand your entire group gets mad at your character because that character is not a team player and does not use the skills they have that have no long term cost to support their team in matters of like or death for that team then this is an entirely fair and reasonable response to a character being a selfish asshat.



No it's not (in my opinion).

If you told the group before the game began "The way the 2024 Bard is designed, I have been given Songs of Restoration as part of the class.  But I do not intend to play a healer and will not heal with this character... so let's all just pretend like WotC never wrote this in the book.  In fact, if necessary I'll take a Sharpie to my Player's Handbook right now"... then there is absolutely no reason why the group should get mad 20 weeks in when the party is in the midst of a giant big battle and you aren't healing anyone.  If you are playing a College of Swords swashbuckler type and never heal people... none of your group should think "Oh, well that was fine the first 19 weeks when it didn't matter, but now we really need it, so you should change your character" and get upset at you if you do not.  And if they DO get mad at you for not doing what you told them you wouldn't be doing... then they are asshats.

Should a group get mad at a Cleric player because they choose to play a Lawful Good holy man and thus choose never prepare any necromancy spells like _Speak With Dead_?  Well, if they do get mad because they think "You know... talking with this corpse would be really handy right now if Bob The Cleric would just get over that whole 'morals' thing!", then I have no issue with saying they're being schmucks.  And if it was me, I'd tell them to stuff it.

If you or anyone is unwilling or unable to have that conversation with your group for whatever reason... then I feel for you.  That probably must suck.  But your particular case of being stuck in an uncomfortable situation with a group that doesn't respect character choices is not enough of a reason for WotC to change up their design decisions on a whim.  Now if you want to let them know that you think it could be an issue when you fill out your survey... that's exactly what you should do and I'd never say otherwise.  But I also won't pretend like ever single idea that gets thrown out here on the messageboards is a fantastic one and that WotC should incorporate all of them.  Because most of them I believe are not.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 8, 2022)

kigmatzomat said:


> Yes, and no.  A "known spell" caster could keep their spells fixed except at level up if they want.
> 
> EXCEPT... that 5e :known spell casters: can wind up with only one 1st level spells if they REALLY wanted to and move all those spells to higher levels.  A 5e Bard could have up to 7 known 9th level spells. (3 new known spells at level 17-20, plus swapping out 1 lower level spell at the four levels)
> 
> ...



I love playing healer, but not with bard and even if I do -though I will- I'd rather have cure wounds than  healing word.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Oct 9, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> I'd rather it was bard, warlocks, and maybe a psion later on (though still torn on if that should be a sorcerer subclass).
> 
> Artificer has always had a strong focus on 'arcane' magic. It's never been focused on the occult mind altering stuff.



Only if you are using the definition of occult to be "mind altering". The more traditional use of the word often includes subjects like alchemy and older pre-modern medical practices, stuff _very_ much on theme to the artificer.

I am also not 100% set on that name anyway given the obvious pf2e comparison it invites that I'm pretty sure Wotc will wish to avoid. The larger point is the list should be focused on buffs/debuffs, healing, and dabble in charms and utility, tied around the theme of casting magic using tools (instruments in bards case) / creations / performance.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 9, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you told the group before the game began "The way the 2024 Bard is designed, I have been given Songs of Restoration as part of the class.  But I do not intend to play a healer and will not heal with this character... so let's all just pretend like WotC never wrote this in the book.  In fact, if necessary I'll take a Sharpie to my Player's Handbook right now"



Then you are having _exactly_ the same conversation as "I want to play a custom class because I don't like the current official version". And you know why you do that? Because the official version is not fit for the rules you want.

So yes you can make a custom class. And have that conversation. But this is entirely the domain of house rules. At this point we're running right into the Oberoni Fallacy.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Oct 9, 2022)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> Only if you are using the definition of occult to be "mind altering". The more traditional use of the word often includes subjects like alchemy and older pre-modern medical practices, stuff _very_ much on theme to the artificer.
> 
> I am also not 100% set on that name anyway given the obvious pf2e comparison it invites that I'm pretty sure Wotc will wish to avoid. The larger point is the list should be focused on buffs/debuffs, healing, and dabble in charms and utility, tied around the theme of casting magic using tools (instruments in bards case) / creations / performance.



Yeah a different name to occult would be better.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 9, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Then you are having _exactly_ the same conversation as "I want to play a custom class because I don't like the current official version". And you know why you do that? Because the official version is not fit for the rules you want.
> 
> So yes you can make a custom class. And have that conversation. But this is entirely the domain of house rules. At this point we're running right into the Oberoni Fallacy.



If (general) your table won't allow house rules... again, that's a _table issue_ and not a design issue.

If (general) you are stuck playing at a table that refuses to use any house rules because they think RAW is the ONLY way to play (which of course is complete baloney because you get no prizes for playing RAW-- there's no bonus points for refusing to make the game your own and in fact are doing so to your own table's detriment)... then (general) you should find a different table.  One that can actually compromise and work hard to make all the players at it happy.

But again, it's not WotC JOB to design the game so that you can just take it easy and not actually put in any work finding a table and fellow players whose style of play matches yours.  Because basically (general) you're saying "I want the game to be designed so that everyone has to play MY way and they all have to come to me... rather than me having to find other people and go to them."  And that's the kind of argument I would suspect would not hold much water back in Renton, WA.

But you know, who knows?  Maybe I'm wrong?  The surveys take down so much information that gets basically translated into strict percentages of "I like it" or "I don't like it" that just saying you don't like a rule when you fill the survey out with no further rationale will be enough?  Maybe you'll get lucky?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 9, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If (general) your table won't allow house rules... again, that's a _table issue_ and not a design issue.



If on the other hand you need house rules to fix something that is entirely a design issue. 

You are asking for house rules (a design issue) and then saying that not having them is a design issue.


DEFCON 1 said:


> If (general) you are stuck playing at a table that refuses to use any house rules because they think RAW is the ONLY way to play (which of course is complete baloney because you get no prizes for playing RAW-- there's no bonus points for refusing to make the game your own and in fact are doing so to your own table's detriment)... then (general) you should find a different table.  One that can actually compromise and work hard to make all the players at it happy.



Fixing broken game design is something tables do. It does not


DEFCON 1 said:


> But again, it's not WotC JOB to design the game so that you can just take it easy and not actually put in any work finding a table and fellow players whose style of play matches yours.



Then just what exactly do you think WotC's job is?


DEFCON 1 said:


> Because basically (general) you're saying "I want the game to be designed so that everyone has to play MY way and they all have to come to me...



And right back atcha. What you are advocating is that all casters should work exactly the same way rather than accommodate a variety of play styles by working in different ways. And then because you have homogenised the game people who previously had some classes that worked with the way they want to play and others that didn't now get precisely zero classes that in this respect play they want to.

And you think that because you personally have had the differentiation scrubbed out in order to suit you when different people want different things (or even want different things at different times) that the problem is something other than that now everyone has to play YOUR way? The key benefit of a class system is that different classes can be made to play different ways.

If we're moving the ranger out of spells known then what are we moving _into_ that group? The paladin? The artificer? Or are we having zero half caster classes that don't play the way you, @DEFCON 1 personally want no matter that not everyone wants to play that way? And do you also want the sorcerer gutted and given over to your personal tastes?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 10, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> If we're moving the ranger out of spells known then what are we moving _into_ that group? The paladin? The artificer? Or are we having zero half caster classes that don't play the way you, @DEFCON 1 personally want no matter that not everyone wants to play that way? And do you also want the sorcerer gutted and given over to your personal tastes?



I actually don't care if any classes are Known Spells casters.  Because once the game is released I'm going to make the rules my own.  WotC can do whatever they want and I'll jerry-rig it to suit my needs.  That's the entire point.  It's why I don't get bent out of shape when these new rules ideas come in, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

Now like I said... if you're saying your piece because you are hoping to influence enough people to agree with you and thus make all your desires known on the surveys so that WotC changes things back... then more power to you. You don't like the rule.  That's cool.  You want to see it changed.  Awesome.  You're going to tell WotC on their survey that you don't like the rule and you want to see it changed.  Fair enough.  That's what the survey is there for.

The question is though... is your current argument for making Rangers go back to having Known Spells actually going to convince enough people to respond to the survey in the same way?  Cause you're going to need to reduce the number of people who either like the change or don't find it in any way a hardship down to probably less than 75% for WotC to consider rolling things back.  And at least in my case... your reasons have not made me think it's a bad idea or even consider scoring the survey poorly.  You haven't made a convincing case in my opinion.  And why do I argue with people who make what I consider poor arguments?  Because we're on a message board and it's fun to talk about these things.

But so be it.  I'm also just one dude amongst the thousands of people who are going to respond.  So if you think your arguments have been sufficient, then best of luck when the survey comes around!  Maybe you've done a good enough job after all.  We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 10, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The question is though... is your current argument for making Rangers go back to having Known Spells actually going to convince enough people to respond to the survey in the same way?



I hope so. I hope pointing out how this version of the ranger:

Appears to be a spell-wielding hedge wizard rather than anything that is commonly understood as a ranger
Makes individual rangers far more cookie cutter
Makes rangers harder to play and far less newbie-friendly because they spend much more time faffing with spells
will be enough.

In fact the _only_ ranger support I've seen is from people who have been playing D&D for years and think that the ranger archetype should only be based on D&D rangers. I think the support of this version of the ranger will be incredibly niche.


DEFCON 1 said:


> Cause you're going to need to reduce the number of people who either like the change or don't find it in any way a hardship down to probably less than 75% for WotC to consider rolling things back.  And at least in my case... your reasons have not made me think it's a bad idea or even consider scoring the survey poorly.  You haven't made a convincing case in my opinion.  And why do I argue with people who make what I consider poor arguments?  Because we're on a message board and it's fun to talk about these things.



Right back atcha. There is only one even vaguely good reason I've seen anyone offer for this change (and that's @Ruin Explorer pointing out newbies can get locked with bad spells - but I don't consider that a great reason). But I suppose if you consider your arguments even passable no wonder you don't like mine.


DEFCON 1 said:


> But so be it.  I'm also just one dude amongst the thousands of people who are going to respond.  So if you think your arguments have been sufficient, then best of luck when the survey comes around!  Maybe you've done a good enough job after all.  We'll just have to wait and see.



Indeed. We will see.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 10, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> There is only one even vaguely good reason I've seen anyone offer for this change (and that's @Ruin Explorer pointing out newbies can get locked with bad spells - but I don't consider that a great reason).



I don't think it's "great" reason either, to be clear. But I do think it is THE reason they're moving everyone to prepared, rather than everyone to known. Both simplify the game in different ways.

Prepared offers:
1) Avoids you getting locked into spells you don't like (which is not quite the same as bad spells - it's worst when they're also bad).
2) Lets you try out spells and use more seemingly "corner-case" spells because you don't have to think "will I be using this in X levels?".
3) Lets you flex your spell loadout for specific situations. I agree with people saying "but this doesn't happen this often", but I've played tons of Druids, and it absolutely does happen.

Prepared also arguably makes the game easier to balance from a developer-side perspective, because you can have spells with narrower use cases and know they won't be basically ignored and thus essentially irrelevant/a waste of space.

Known offers:
1) A sense of personality/individuality to your spell list.
2) Less burden on the player to know what their current spells do - they pretty much always know what they can do.
3) No need regularly evaluate currently prepared spells, no potential pressure from other players to do so.

If everyone used known the designers could also re-evaluate the spell list and just remove any spells which were too narrow in usage and/or combine them with other spells and/or broaden them out, which might simplify the game somewhat.

I will say, however, we needed easier, official, built-in ways to change Cantrips particularly. The biggest "I screwed myself" stuff I've seen with known spells has been largely Cantrips.

I do think "picking a lane" here is better than the 3E/5E situation though, I will say.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 10, 2022)

@Ruin Explorer I think you have made a really good summation here about the differences, and will make it easy for people to see what side of the wall they fall on.  Great work!

And your list makes it even clearer to me exactly why the argument for Known Spells falters for me, because I myself believe only #2 to be a real issue.  In #1s case I'm a believer that personality and individuality comes out of roleplaying and how you play the personality of the character and not game mechanics used to represent it... and for #3 that if you are at a table where players CAN pressure you to play your PC in ways you don't want... you should get away from those toxic players as quickly as possible and the game would be doing you no favors in putting in rules to just try to and reduce their toxicity to you.  If you play with jerks... wanting rules in the game just so the jerks don't hurt you as much is not a great look and isn't something I think WotC should be doing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 10, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And your list makes it even clearer to me exactly why the argument for Known Spells falters for me, because I myself believe only #2 to be a real issue.  In #1s case I'm a believer that personality and individuality comes out of roleplaying and how you play the personality of the character and not game mechanics used to represent it...



And at that point I wonder why you bother with complex mechanics unless you're deliberately playing an oversized boardgame.

Your personality should work in harmony with your mechanics and not against them.


DEFCON 1 said:


> and for #3 that if you are at a table where players CAN pressure you to play your PC in ways you don't want... you should get away from those toxic players as quickly as possible and the game would be doing you no favors in putting in rules to just try to and reduce their toxicity to you.  If you play with jerks... wanting rules in the game just so the jerks don't hurt you as much is not a great look and isn't something I think WotC should be doing.



And if you're using "I'm just playing my character" as an excuse when you screw over the rest of the party then please leave. You are the one being a jerk.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 10, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> and for #3 that if you are at a table where players CAN pressure you to play your PC in ways you don't want... you should get away from those toxic players as quickly as possible and the game would be doing you no favors in putting in rules to just try to and reduce their toxicity to you. If you play with jerks... wanting rules in the game just so the jerks don't hurt you as much is not a great look and isn't something I think WotC should be doing.



I mean, I'm not trying to be rude, but I think it's representative of a real problem with discussion online that you immediately leap to talking about "jerks" and "toxic" here. And not just because Britney starts up in my head every time I read that word 

Players "pressuring" you aren't necessarily being jerks or toxic. They may well not even be conscious that they're doing it. Very often they're perfectly nice people who just want a situation in the game to go well. 

The typical conflict I've seen in games involves zero jerks, and looks more like this:

Player A: < is selecting spells >
Player B: "Oh we might fight X, maybe you should memorize [spell which would help significantly if that is correct]?"
Player A: "I don't like that spell, I've picked these, they'll be great!"
Player B: "Oh okay, um... cool"

Or

Player B: "Can you cast [insert cool buff or similar] on me? That's an awesome spell!"
Player A: "Nah, I didn't memorize it this time, I have [spell I probably won't cast/obvious junk spell]! It sounds cool!
Player B: "Roger, it's a cool spell though!"

And obviously it emerges that the player memorizing the spells screwed up in a sense, because that spell would have made a big difference, and whilst there aren't recriminations, there is a vague sense that the player is maybe a bit of a ditz and their PC maybe a bit useless. Often this is quite ongoing because the player picking spells is just a bit quixotic in their spell selection period.

But this hits "Known" spells to in a slightly different way. The same quixotic players (who are often extremely pleasant to game with because they're fun people and often good RPers) are the people most likely to end up with a Known spell selection that

If it's at jerk levels you have something that looks more like 2E:

Player A: < is selecting spells >
Player B: "Okay Cleric, we need you to memorize X, Y and Z [all heals/cures] and retain your spell slots to use those!"
Player A: "But I'd rather memorize these other things, we do have healing via [whatever]!"
Player B: "Well if you're not a team player... I guess you can do what you want..." (or worse)



Neonchameleon said:


> And if you're using "I'm just playing my character" as an excuse when you screw over the rest of the party then please leave. You are the one being a jerk.



Hmmmmmm.

That can definitely go either way, because what is "screwing over the rest of the party", exactly? Seems vague as heck. Like

1) Rogue steals the loot from the other PCs and runs off, uses excuse "I'm just playing my character!", sure both player AND PC are jerks.

But

2) Cleric chooses spells she thinks are a good idea (and which may or may not, in fact, be a good idea!), and also says "It's what my character would pick and I don't think they're useless!", but X other party members want her to memorize just heals/cures/etc, and think she's being a jerk for failing to do. I would suggest it is in fact they who are being jerks in most cases. You want to control what the Cleric memorizes? Play a Cleric.

Then there's the more confusing:

3) Wizard picks a bunch of obviously-not-great to near-useless spells that the player knows perfectly well are pretty crap. All of this, unfortunately, matches well with the personality/style of the character, are they being a jerk? What if other players ask them to take more sensible spells?

I've seen all of these, none are theoretical. In the last case, I've seen it more than once, but with Known spells (a Sorcerer), no-one bothered them about it because they knew it couldn't be changed, and eventually people just got used to it and confirmation bias kicked in and we only remember the times those spells worked out, which, like, wasn't often, but hilarious when it did.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 10, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hmmmmmm.
> 
> That can definitely go either way, because what is "screwing over the rest of the party", exactly? Seems vague as heck. Like
> 
> ...



I've given an example slightly earlier in the thread using specifically in character choices that were accessible. The one I used was not preparing Water Walking one morning when:

You're a Spells Prepared caster with Water Walking on your spell list. Therefore you can prepare Water Walking.
You have looked at a map and know that you need to make it across a mile of open water under at least time pressure, and have no other obvious way across. Therefore Water Walking is significantly useful to your party.
If you were a Spells Known caster you wouldn't be playing a jerk because changing your spells on the fly is not something you can do. It's an out of character choice you have to live with. 

I'd further disagree with @DEFCON 1 and say that teamwork involves talking through your plans and working together. It's also something you should do _in character_. And not wanting to die is not a jerk motiviation. Meanwhile "I don't care how we work together and save each others' lives" _is_ being a jerk. Therefore not discussing _in character_ how to work together better is being a jerk with suicidal tendencies. You are playing someone who knows their life is on the line and the things protecting it are your party members.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 10, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'd further disagree with @DEFCON 1 and say that teamwork involves talking through your plans and working together.



I generally agree but I think in the real-world of role-playing that isn't always as smooth or simple as you're apparently suggesting.


Neonchameleon said:


> And not wanting to die is not a jerk motiviation.



It absolutely _can be_ if you push it hard enough. Being a jerk or not is about how you approach things. If you just won't shut up about something, even if it is the smart thing in your view, you are being a jerk. There is a limit, even when you're "right".


Neonchameleon said:


> Meanwhile "I don't care how we work together and save each others' lives" _is_ being a jerk.



That's just hyperbole that adds nothing to this discussion imho esp. the stuff about "suicidal tendencies". You're seemingly setting a false dichotomy where you're either 100% a team player who always memorizes what the team needs and casts what the team needs, or you're a nihilistic loser who doesn't care if anyone lives or dies. Come on.

I'd also make a distinction between PCs at the start of a campaign and during a campaign. Obviously, if there's a PC who actually is a nihilistic loser and it isn't that sort of game (i.e. it's not a game about team-play, and D&D is a game about team-play to some extent, though less than you seem to be suggesting imho), the DM should probably be saying "Yo that character concept doesn't work". Like, get rid of angry loners and the like at the session 0 phase.

If you're like, ten sessions in and there's a dude who just doesn't like to memorize utility spells, and that's been well-established (including in-character), he's not a "jerk" for continuing with that thread. There are at least two legitimate ways to RP that with the slightly far-fetched water-walking situation (sounds like a lot of good info and time to rest for a "time pressure" situation lol but not impossible), one being that he grows as a person and memorizes this spell even though it annoys the PC in character, the other being that he just won't do it, and so you have to work out a different way to deal with the challenge, like getting some pontoon boats or something.

My view is that if you _really_ need to be in charge of whether X thing happens, pick a PC who can do X thing (I live my truth here to be clear, that's why I end up playing Bards and Druids mostly lol). Don't pick a bloody Fighter and start trying to arrange the spells of the casters for them lol. In most ways casters, especially full-casters are advantaged over other PCs, but not this. By all means discuss it, but if you don't get your way, they aren't a jerk just for not agreeing, and you shouldn't become a jerk by continuing to push the issue.

And let's be real - _most of the time_ in D&D, if a caster can memorize a spell to totally "own" a situation, they will LEAP at the chance, and shove other PCs out of the way to do it! To the point where casters often just invalidate skill-users. I mean, you could well have a PC who has appropriate skills/tools to move a boat/raft faster over that water, but yeah, Water Walk just means that stuff he has is pointless, because Water Walk is really simple and works 100% of the time with zero effort beyond the spell slot.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 10, 2022)

This is a very interesting conversation and it does make me think about it.  I will freely admit that my gaming only involves playing with friends and those players we have all cultivated together wherein we know and are comfortable with each others preferences in play.  I have done my best to make sure I don't play with others who have expectations that are too disparate from mine.  So perhaps I am too privileged to have a more realistic understanding of what others are going through.  It could also perhaps be an age thing... where I am just too old to suffer fools gladly and am quite comfortable kicking them to the curb should they consistently behave it a way that I find ridiculous or uncomfortable.

So the idea that ANY player would make a request of another player to do something that they do not already know the player is happy to do is just an anathema to me.  Am I going too far by saying that requesting player is "toxic"?  Yeah, I will concede that.  That most likely is not nearly the level the issue is at.  But at the same time I still find it to be in tremendous bad form.

Would we expect a player to be able to recommend or push a fellow player take X, Y and Z spells at _level-up_ and not think they were being awfully presumptuous (especially if they got seemingly irritated that the player did not follow along?)  Of course not.  We would probably recommend that player stay in their lane.  So the idea that that type of player could make recommendations about what a fellow player should Prepare in the morning is also as presumptuous and I don't think should be given any credence-- even if the player had the best interests in the game or the party at heart.  They might not be a "toxic" player... but the attitude can lead down the road towards it.

And this is especially true if the second player even told the group before the game started "Oh by the way... these 2024 updated books made Rangers Prepared spellcasters but I think that rule change kinda sucked.  So for this campaign I'm going to play this character as though he was a 2014 Ranger and only use Known spells.  So I won't be able to change them out every morning."  If you say that and someone else in the group STILL tries to get you to swap out spells because "the book says you can"...?  That's even worse.

But again... I say that coming from my position wherein I can tell that kind of player to keep their so-called "helpful" comments to themself.  If other people don't find themselves in that position and thus just would like the book to do the heavy lifting for them?  Fine.  I understand.  I still think that player needs to find a new group regardless, because if it ain't this one rule it's going to be another where there's going to end up being an issue... but that's not for me to say.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 10, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I've seen all of these, none are theoretical. In the last case, I've seen it more than once, but with Known spells (a Sorcerer), no-one bothered them about it because they knew it couldn't be changed, and eventually people just got used to it and confirmation bias kicked in and we only remember the times those spells worked out, which, like, wasn't often, but hilarious when it did.



So this last Summer I had a Wizard character who took Mold Earth as one of his cantrips, because at the start of the campaign he was a civilian specialist attached to a military unit, and it seemed thematic (and an interesting change of pace) to be able to dig trenches magically. It saw some memorable use, but wasn't particularly vital. Eventually I used the Tasha's feature for Wizards to trade out cantrips and replaced it with Mind Sliver, which would almost certainly be the higher rated cantrip on most people's lists.

And the result was disappointment from the group, because from time to time, remembering occasions when I had done memorable magical digging, they would come up with some scheme that involved me doing it again and I didn't have that tool in my toolbox anymore (well, actually some days I did, but never the right ones it seemed). Meanwhile I don't think my having a second attack cantrip, somewhat more optimal in many situations, registered with them at all.

So one thing that can be said for memorized casters is that, regardless of "pressuring" by the group, the group knows your capabilities a lot better and gets to participate in your magic in a way they don't when you are preparing different spells everyday and they don't know what you can do. Sometimes they'd rather have a less powerful but more consistent companion.

The problem with 5e memorized casters is that they should have gotten a few more spells to compensate for their lack of versatility and to make a few RP oriented choices possible while still taking the usual gang of top tier spells. Instead they got fewer spells than the prepared casters and no versatility.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 11, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> So this last Summer I had a Wizard character who took Mold Earth as one of his cantrips, because at the start of the campaign he was a civilian specialist attached to a military unit, and it seemed thematic (and an interesting change of pace) to be able to dig trenches magically. It saw some memorable use, but wasn't particularly vital. Eventually I used the Tasha's feature for Wizards to trade out cantrips and replaced it with Mind Sliver, which would almost certainly be the higher rated cantrip on most people's lists.
> 
> And the result was disappointment from the group, because from time to time, remembering occasions when I had done memorable magical digging, they would come up with some scheme that involved me doing it again and I didn't have that tool in my toolbox anymore (well, actually some days I did, but never the right ones it seemed). Meanwhile I don't think my having a second attack cantrip, somewhat more optimal in many situations, registered with them at all.
> 
> ...



I think this os an argument for not allowing the inlearning of spells.

I think the best way is the wizard's way of preperation. You can learn spells, so you have consistency, but you can swap them out for flexibility. Then I'd like to have an ability to swap out spells on the fly.

For known casters, I think instead of unlearning spells, you should be able to "retire" them, and then you should have a limited ability to tap into this resource a few times per day. If you don't want to retire a spell, you should just add a new spell of a lower level to the retired list.

This way, you have a limited amount of flexibility for balance concerns and a certain amount of consostancy and adaptability.

Edit:
During the playtest there was another way for the ranger to have flexible casting: you coul leave a slot open and prepare it in 1min/spell level when you need it. We really liked that rule.


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 11, 2022)

4e missed a trick here. They should have keyed powers by power source and then each class have its own features that interact with them in interesting ways etc. A lot of the powers were very similar with small riders to differentiate or scale them.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 11, 2022)

Horwath said:


> IMHO, there only needs to be one spell list.
> 
> Spells.
> 
> all casters have access to all spells.



This is how I feel too, same with "class" features. Its hard enough for me to remember what spells and class features do let alone which ones are for which class. Id prefer a classless system, or at least fewer classes or a looser class system.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Oct 11, 2022)

To add to this whole conversation of whether players are "jerks" or not for refusing to prepare certain spells or not because it isn't in character. Or people being jerks for trying to force them to, I point out that it isn't just as simple issue either. There are times where "in character" choices do make sense:
Example: I am playing a cleric and have chosen a god whose dogma _specifically forbids_ the preparation of healing spells. I am not a jerk for refusing to prepare them regardless of if the cleric as a whole can.  

I'm of two minds on this. Personally I prefer the mechanical idea of having players be able to switch spells out, but I definitely would fall on the side of erring on spell learning to prevent player conflict though. The ranger not learning a water walking spell would not a table break, where as a party of players trying to pressure said ranger into preparing it might do so. If that possibility can be easily mitigated why not allow it?

Personally I wish we could give ever class an option to choose between being a learned or prepared caster at character selection and give clear mechanical advantages and disadvantages to each as universal concept isolated from class. After all, why _can't_ I play a druid who learns spells and doesn't prepare them? It should be a player choice.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 11, 2022)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> To add to this whole conversation of whether players are "jerks" or not for refusing to prepare certain spells or not because it isn't in character. Or people being jerks for trying to force them to, I point out that it isn't just as simple issue either. There are times where "in character" choices do make sense:
> Example: I am playing a cleric and have chosen a god whose dogma _specifically forbids_ the preparation of healing spells. I am not a jerk for refusing to prepare them regardless of if the cleric as a whole can.
> 
> I'm of two minds on this. Personally I prefer the mechanical idea of having players be able to switch spells out, but I definitely would fall on the side of erring on spell learning to prevent player conflict though. The ranger not learning a water walking spell would not a table break, where as a party of players trying to pressure said ranger into preparing it might do so. If that possibility can be easily mitigated why not allow it?
> ...



Because that wouldn't be "simple".


----------



## shadowoflameth (Oct 11, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> There needs to be 6-7 spell lists.
> 
> Arcane
> Bardic
> ...



I think the three are likely fine for the official classes that exist now. I do think though that we still need class lists. Saying that the Bard and Ranger gets everything from their groups but only from certain schools will make looking them up in character creation tedious and prone to rules mistakes. Make Arcane, Primal and Divine tags for example Magic Missile, 1st level Evocation, V, S, Arcane. Then put it in the class lists that you want to routinely have it. Having only the groups would lead to classes getting spells that don't fit or missing ones that thematically would fit and these issues will hurt backward compatibility as well as discouraging new players.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 11, 2022)

shadowoflameth said:


> I think the three are likely fine for the official classes that exist now. I do think though that we still need class lists. Saying that the Bard and Ranger gets everything from their groups but only from certain schools will make looking them up in character creation tedious and prone to rules mistakes. Make Arcane, Primal and Divine tags for example Magic Missile, 1st level Evocation, V, S, Arcane. Then put it in the class lists that you want to routinely have it. Having only the groups would lead to classes getting spells that don't fit or missing ones that thematically would fit and these issues will hurt backward compatibility as well as discouraging new players.



That's exactly the concern behind the thread. Bards without party buffs is not very thematic.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 13, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Agreed - that creates options paralysis. Might as well play GURPS…




You can't threaten me with a good time


----------

