# What's your opinion on the standardization of Spellcasters?



## MoonSong (Oct 6, 2022)

Ok, let's try to gauge a reaction. This is a hot topic, but the discussion is spread out across threads. So let's just get a feel of it. 

What is your response to the next changes?

All spellcasters prepare spells. With a fixed set of always prepared spells per class.
The slots to prepare spells are fixed per level.
All classes care about schools to know which spells to prepare.


----------



## aco175 (Oct 6, 2022)

I win, 100%

I think that casters should prepare spells at the start of each day.  This can be from a book of several spells or from a god with all of the spells as choices.  There should be a list of spells that the caster has floating around in his head.  If he has 6 spells prepared and 4 slots, he can cast any of those 6 spells 4 times.  

There can be mechanics for certain casters to regain spells like the wizard or swap prepared spells from a book or something else.  These would be options for certain classes.  There can even be an option for some to have cures as always prepared spells or such.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 6, 2022)

I like it as of now.

But, to be clear, we've only seen 1 full spellcaster and 1 half-spellcaster for now. There's like 3 billions casting classes in 5e, so there's nothing saying they'll all work like the 2 we've seen so far.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 6, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Ok, let's try to gauge a reaction. This is a hot topic, but the discussion is spread out across threads. So let's just get a feel of it.
> 
> What is your response to the next changes?
> 
> ...



On 1: The idea of giving casters the ability to reprepare spells from their whole list is a massive buff. This has always been the purview of the divine classes, and so had weaker spells generally as a result. The fact that a bard can do this now is an incredible boost of power, and I don't really think its warranted.

On 2: This is fine, we have been doing this since the start of 5e and I think its fine.

On 3: I think this is actually less newb friendly. Its much easier to go, "here is a specific list of spells, choose anything on it you want" than it is, "here is a list of spells, choose anything except ones that have this thing, or that thing, of XYZ". It does certainly save space, but I think its a bit clunky.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 6, 2022)

I think frankly that this is a _terrible_ change and I'm torn between whether it's merely very bad or gamebreakingly bad. It doesn't just homogenize all the classes as they essentially have the same relationship to magic, it homogenises characters within the classes as they all know exactly the same spells

Further it degrades play experience at the table as everyone has a massively long list of spells to check through at long rests. And players have to either use electronic tools or care about abstract things like spell schools.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 6, 2022)

Right now, I don't like it.  I'm not opposed to standardization, but I'm opposed to this method of standardization, which makes casters stronger and more flexible.  (I prefer highly specialized casters.)


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 6, 2022)

I am fine with the Bard having flexible access to spells.

Other class concepts work better if deciding the spells while leveling, because they represent a more "superhero" like concept with specific powers. Some Sorcerer concepts are like mutants with spells representing specific genetic powers. While leveling, they need to be able to undo bad decisions that the made at a previous level. But the spells are mostly enduring. In other words, they decide which spells are "always prepared" while leveling.


----------



## Grantypants (Oct 6, 2022)

I like standardization to some extent, but I don't want this to be the standard. I've never really liked the idea that divine casters automatically knew all the spells in their class spell lists and could cast anything from the list that they prepared and had a slot for. 

Instead, I'd rather see everyone standardized like wizards. Everyone has a spell book or equivalent and learns spells from the appropriate spell lists, then prepares some number of those learned spells for casting every morning. Everyone learns new spells at level up but can also learn new spells through adventuring, as long as the new spells are on the right spell list and in the right school.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 6, 2022)

1) I would like the bard to have a song book. I think wen need to see the sorcerer as well as the warlock to really gauge if all casters prepare spells. I bet they won't. 

2) I am not sure about spell slots = prepared slots. It is a nerf for high level casters and runs contrary to the idea of unerused spells seeing more game play. If you can only prepare a single level 8 or 9 spell, you want to make sure it counts.

3) I like the access through schools. Feels way less arbitrary.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 6, 2022)

As I've said elsewhere, spell prep was the unfun thing that keeps me from playing clerics or wizards. Now it's infecting my favorite class and I don't like it.

It's fine for there to be one class that has to do obnoxious homework every morning, but don't make me do it with EVERY class.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 6, 2022)

I really don't like it. It sucks the flavour out completely and adds yet more oddness to the game. How are bards tapping into the song of creation and pulling out spells that are identical to other arcane spells? How are sorcerers changing their spells? Why can't wizards tap into something? Why do they have to study so hard and pay money to scribe new spells? If wizards no longer have to do this, are they not just sorcerers too? 

It's a clunky change that feels more like something that you introduce into a brand new edition, where you have more room to ensure the changes make sense.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 6, 2022)

I don't care.

- If everyone is listed as a Prepared caster and you don't want to go through the hassle... then you just make your initial spell selection and just never swap the spells out.  You essentially make yourself a Known Spell caster if that's really important to you.

- The number of Prepared spells being set based on your matching spell slots is understandable from an gameplay ease-of-use point of view... but I do agree that it does make things weird for high-level casters-- where they still have to Prepare four 1st level spells despite probably never actually casting any of them except in the most dire of circumstances.  In the 2014 method you can just choose to Prepare like one or two 1st level spells knowing you probably won't ever actually cast them in the day... and thus it lets you have more higher-level spell options that are more likely to be cast.  Granted... this does mean that if we assume for the sake of argument that Rituals will maintain the current rules that you must have the spell Prepared in order to cast it as a Ritual, then the non-Wizards can make use of their Ritual casting by Preparing a lot of low-level ritual spells.  Of course... this would also assume a caster would actually potentially cast all four of their 1st level slots in the day wherein they'd need to save their slots by using Rituals... but I don't know how likely that will be.  (This was always the advantage of Wizards, who could cast ritual spells that they had in their spellbooks even without the spell being Prepared-- so they had all Ritual spells available at all times, _and_ still had the four 1st level spell slots available for casting other spells.)  But really, at the end of the day I do not know if the lower number of Prepared higher-leveled spells versus more 1st, 2nd & 3rd levels ones is really going to be that big of a deal-- and honestly I don't think this particular rule is going to stay in the game anyway.

- I don't consider it any big deal whether a class has an individual spell list that is written out strictly for the class (which usually consists of them only getting certain types of spells anyway) versus only getting certain schools of spells (which results in pretty much the exact same framework other than some spells being different for them in 2024 than in 2014.)  Whether you have a hand-picked selection of spells available to you, or a list of spells from only certain schools, there's no real difference (except for those individuals who think "X class HAS to have spells A, B & C, otherwise THEY AREN'T TRULY THAT CLASS!).  But to me those are the select few that you can't base your entire design paradigm around, because every single person in that group will choose a different set of spells they think has to be available anyway.

At the end of the day my feeling is this... true character individuality and uniqueness comes from the _player_ and the backstory and personality the player gives to their PC-- basically how they roleplay.  And game mechanics do not a unique or cool character make.  After all... pretty much every single Fighter in AD&D looked mechanically exactly the same-- it was only the individual player and how they played their character that made all of these Fighters different and memorable and awesome.

Are there players out there that play the "best in slot" game, where they only take the best options every time a game mechanic choice comes up... and thus find themselves playing and seeing the exact same mechanics appearing over and over and over-- especially when they become available to more characters and more classes?  Sure.  But I do not believe the designers need to cater to them-- the players who could make _wildly_ mechanically-varied characters if they wanted to just by making different choices... but never do because those options aren't "optimal".  WotC cannot save those players from themselves.

If you want your PC to be different and unique compared to the other characters in your party?  Just don't choose the exact same options everyone else does because you ALL have this need to only take "best in slot".  Take the options you think would assist your character in being cool, rather than demand WotC not make options more widely available so that you all have no choice but to be forced to play differently because the rules won't let you overlap.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 6, 2022)

I definitely don't like the shift towards prepared spells. It removes a major avenue for character differentiation within classes.

I don't feel as strongly about tying spell preparation to spell level, but I still think I prefer the older version. I do think tying spell slots to prepared spells on a 1:1 basis has a lot of potential to be confusing to returning players of older editions.

As for spell schools, in principle I like the idea of making these matter, but there are a lot of questionable classifications that get emphasized this way, and the current implementation feels like an obvious workaround, rather than being based on an independent desire to make schools matter.


The biggest change, though, isn't mentioned in the OP. Is  the shift to shared Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists part of the "standardization" the poll is asking about, or is this more focused on the changes to preparation?


----------



## niklinna (Oct 6, 2022)

I'd like to get into a whole thing about this matter, but one of my main games right now is Torg Eternity, where you get a whopping three spells by playing a spellcaster. If you're from the magic cosm you can get five. If you play the one exact right kind of spellcaster (like, a specific cosm/race combo), you can eventually get as many as eleven from a very weird and particular list of spells. And you can't ever change them. (You can in fact get more in any of those cases, but the rapidly escalating XP/spell ratio makes it a bit crazy.)

Eh okay I'll get into it a little bit.

The whole point of *spells* as opposed to powers is that you cast them through ritualized action (however brief, and in D&D it's historically very brief!). The action can be so exacting or tax the brain so much that you forget bits (original Vancian magic), or you just have to really bone up every day to be sure you've got it primed and ready, but you should be able to do that retuning. The time scale of the retuning could still be a differentiator. Maybe most spellcasting classes can do it on a long rest, but Wizards can do it in a minute (X times per rest, whatever). Coming back around, though, a big part of the narrative behind Sorcerers and Warlocks is that they don't do spells through ritualized action, they are in fact inherent or granted powers. So that drains a good bit of the feel/fantasy as well as the mechanics from those classes. Then again, Sorcerers have that whole wild magic thing going* and why couldn't a patron grant a different power each day, just like a deity? Roleplay that stuff!

* What if sorcerers had to roll randomly for their spells each day?  : Remember when even wizards (magic users) had to roll dice to determine what spells they had?

The slots to prepare thing is just weird and arbitrary. But then so is the concentration mechanic, however well-motivated it is in gamist terms. But slots prepared is a bit more complicated than number prepared, so it seems to go counter to the direction they're going. I don't know what their reasoning is behind this. It's definitely a nerf.

Three spell lists is too crude. Specifying a combo of list + schools winds up being more complicated than just having class lists, which again seems to go counter to the direction they're going. These are effectively just class-specific lists, except you don't even get the list that you can just look at, you have to go digging through multiple lists at best, individual spell descriptions at worst. I think Pathfinder 2 struck the right balance with its four lists, and with having Sorcerers/Witches get a list based on their patron. But dang is that system crunchy and full of undiagrammed feat chains/trees and "this feat gives you that spell so flip pages back and forth to find out what all you can do" (exactly the problem I pointed out with list + schools, hmm...).

I'll add that the supposedly simpler "you have these spells, unless you pick from this bigger list" is terrible textual organization and really muddies things. They should just have a separate section or sidebar with "the quick build".

There's much more to come down the pike though, so who knows?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2022)

I think it’s a bit too soon to be saying they’re standardizing casting. We’ve seen all of two casters. It could be that this is only how experts prepare and cast spells, for example. It’s also possible that this first look at casting polls poorly and we don’t see it again.

For my part, I would prefer each casting class have unique casting mechanics. The Warlock is awesome because it actually does something different than every other caster. The Next playtest sorcerer was an entirely spell point-based caster and it was awesome. I’d love to see that make a comeback, while the wizard goes full-on classic prepare-each-use-of-a-spell-individually Vancian, the Cleric leans into Channel Divinity as its unique casting feature, the druid gets something else new… Of course I know none of that is going to happen in 5e (or 1D&D or whatever you want to call it). So, I guess the approach we see in the Experts UA is fine?


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I think it’s a bit too soon to be saying they’re standardizing casting. We’ve seen all of two casters. It could be that this is only how experts prepare and cast spells, for example.



It isn't that farfetched:


The rules we were given mention "prepared spells" for multiclassing without acknowledging known spells at all. 
In the video, Crawford mentions something akin to "our casters are prepared casters" while ambiguous, one possible interpretation is all casters are going to be prepared casters.
In the lead up to Tasha's, UA featured the option to swap one spell known every long rest.
More important, if this is the way they are going, the sooner we figure it out and respond, the better. Would you rather wait for a year to find out for sure and waste precious time that could be better spent designing something that works?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> It isn't that farfetched:
> 
> 
> The rules we were given mention "prepared spells" for multiclassing without acknowledging known spells at all.
> ...



I don’t think it’s far-fetched to speculate that other casters might use this same spell preparation system, _if_ it polls well in this UA. But we don’t know if that will happen or not, and I think it’s more productive to give feedback on this UA based on what’s in it, rather than what we imagine might be in future packets based on what we’ve seen in this one. We’re 2 months into a 12-18 month open playtest process, at this point everything is still subject to change at this point.


----------



## beancounter (Oct 6, 2022)

Such a rule severely weakens warlocks who only get 2 spell slots for most of their career.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think it’s far-fetched to speculate that other casters might use this same spell preparation system, _if_ it polls well in this UA. But we don’t know if that will happen or not, and I think it’s more productive to give feedback on this UA based on what’s in it, rather than what we imagine might be in future packets based on what we’ve seen in this one. We’re 2 months into a 12-18 month open playtest process, at this point everything is still subject to change at this point.



I'm not that convinced. To me it is very clear their intention is to make all casters prepared casters. (Heck I've just checked the previous packet, and  Mage initiate clearly reads "always prepared" instead of the "you know" language). While it is very good for rangers, and not entirely wrong for bards, the whole set up is very bad, clunky, hard to use and deprives bards of many iconic bard spells. (Not to mention it forces you to use the game warping healing word instead of cure wounds which I prefer. Of course if I wanted to run my bard as a healer which I don't really always want)


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 6, 2022)

Honestly, I would be surprised if these kind of design aspects are even on the table for change.


----------



## fuindordm (Oct 7, 2022)

It is boring for all spellcasters to have the same mechanics.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 7, 2022)

All spellcasters prepare spells. With a fixed set of always prepared spells per class.

I assume the Sorcerer will be a spontaneous caster, during the DnD Next playtest ( became 5e) many people felt that other classes being spontaneous casters in a way took away from what made the Sorcerer feel unique.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 7, 2022)

fuindordm said:


> It is boring for all spellcasters to have the same mechanics.



Or at least this on, terrible one.

If everyone had spells known and spell points I would be fine.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 7, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Ok, let's try to gauge a reaction. This is a hot topic, but the discussion is spread out across threads. So let's just get a feel of it.
> 
> What is your response to the next changes?
> 
> ...



Since we have only seen one spellcaster so far, isn't it a bit early to say this? Or was this stated in one of the videos I haven't watched? 

If this is how it works, I think this is a change for the sake of change that doesn't improve anything and, in fact, is a step backward, third bullet point excepted. But I don't think this is how it is going to be (especially the third bullet point).


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 7, 2022)

I voted for the "don't care" option.

Whether or not spellcasters have to prepare spells is not nearly as much of an issue for me as spell slots are.  If they don't give us Spell Points, or at least the _option_ for them, I'm not gonna be happy.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

I'm bored of martial combat.  WotC should create another three or four more ways to do weapon fighting.

Because that's what D&D needs... to be more like the board game Root-- where every class has completely different mechanics and gameplay to learn and use but somehow can all combine and work together to create an experience to win.

The board game is indeed the most important part of the D&D experience.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 7, 2022)

I think it's too early to say about specifics without seeing any of the priest or mage classes & archetypes but in general I think the current direction of flex-vancian & prep from a possible subset of the overall arcane/divine/primal lists with extra always prepped bonus spells is probably going to be a good thing.  I'm more interested in how they handle edge cases like the mage group & maybe some priest archetypes.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'm bored of martial combat.  WotC should create another three or four more ways to do weapon fighting.
> 
> Because that's what D&D needs... to be more like the board game Root-- where every class has completely different mechanics and gameplay to learn and use but somehow can all combine and work together to create an experience to win.
> 
> The board game is indeed the most important part of the D&D experience.



Honestly? Fast and visceral or deep and interactive. I can enjoy both. What I don't enjoy is what amounts to playing patty-cake until one side runs out of hit points. which is the way 5e works. The current situation where a CR2 ogre has 59 hit points but there are very limited tactics is the worst of both worlds and is one of my two big beefs with 5e. (The other one is just how bad the DM tools are).

Fortunately there is more variety on the way. We've already seen things like the Charger feat (which both requires using mobility and grants a significant amount of mobility) and Shield Master buffed and the costs to them brought down.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'm bored of martial combat.  WotC should create another three or four more ways to do weapon fighting.



You jest, but giving martial characters more to do in combat than say “I attack with my weapon” and make an attack roll would be a big improvement.


DEFCON 1 said:


> Because that's what D&D needs... to be more like the board game Root-- where every class has completely different mechanics and gameplay to learn and use but somehow can all combine and work together to create an experience to win.



Never played this board game, but what you’re describing sounds great.


DEFCON 1 said:


> The board game is indeed the most important part of the D&D experience.



In my experience, the combat mini game tends to take up the most time at the table. It’d be nice if that minigame was fun to play in and of itself.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

the Jester said:


> Since we have only seen one spellcaster so far, isn't it a bit early to say this? Or was this stated in one of the videos I haven't watched?



Nah, it’s just people seeing how the Bard and Ranger work in this UA and assuming that all casters will work the same way. Which might not necessarily be wrong, but I do think it’s too early to say. Whether or not we see this style of casting applied to other classes will depend on what the feedback to this UA looks like.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> In my experience, the combat mini game tends to take up the most time at the table. It’d be nice if that minigame was fun to play in and of itself.



The D&D combat mini-game has never been that much fun in _any_ edition.  That's why every attempt that has been made to cordon it off into its own minatures game without all that pesky roleplaying getting in the way has failed miserably.  And which is why in my opinion trying to go out of the way to make the current board game "more fun" is kind of missing the point.

I know people like what they like and that's understandable.  I just don't know why people aren't happy going with those folks outside of WotC who are in fact making the "board game" more fun for people and just playing that.  Level Up, Kingdoms & Warfare, etc.  It's all out there ready to be played.  But waiting for WotC to decide to join them out there seems unnecessary... especially considering there's never been any indication they would do it, or at the very least to the level that folks seem to think it would need to be.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'm bored of martial combat.  WotC should create another three or four more ways to do weapon fighting.
> 
> Because that's what D&D needs... to be more like the board game Root-- where every class has completely different mechanics and gameplay to learn and use but somehow can all combine and work together to create an experience to win.
> 
> The board game is indeed the most important part of the D&D experience.



Thanks for the recommendation, Root looks really cool.  I love board games with some asymmetry between sides.

A RPG where each class was a specific bundle oriented towards a specific play experience with no overlapping mechanics would be pretty cool, I have to admit.


----------



## Undrave (Oct 7, 2022)

Feels like a huge step back to 3.e to me. And I always found the way magic is classified in D&D to be just... terrible.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Thanks for the recommendation, Root looks really cool.  I love board games with some asymmetry between sides.



Funny part is I've never actually played it... I've just read and watched a crap-ton about it with the intention of finally getting around to it.  

But I've been dragged into the cult of *Twilight Imperium 4th edition* and continually use that as my massively complex board game experience of choice, LOL.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'm bored of martial combat.  WotC should create another three or four more ways to do weapon fighting.



Well yes. Stand and swing sucks.

I don't think your sarcasm means what you think it means.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The D&D combat mini-game has never been that much fun in _any_ edition.



It was a ton of fun in 4e.


DEFCON 1 said:


> That's why every attempt that has been made to cordon it off into its own minatures game without all that pesky roleplaying getting in the way has failed miserably.



Well good thing that’s not the goal I guess?


DEFCON 1 said:


> And which is why in my opinion trying to go out of the way to make the current board game "more fun" is kind of missing the point.



What point are they missing? Combat can be fun, without having any negative impact on roleplaying.


DEFCON 1 said:


> I know people like what they like and that's understandable.  I just don't know why people aren't happy going with those folks outside of WotC who are in fact making the "board game" more fun for people and just playing that.  Level Up, Kingdoms & Warfare, etc.  It's all out there ready to be played.  But waiting for WotC to decide to join them out there seems unnecessary... especially considering there's never been any indication they would do it, or at the very least to the level that folks seem to think it would need to be.



Because for better or worse, D&D is the biggest thing on the block. Sure, if you don’t like what D&D has to offer, there are other games that can fill whatever niche you’re looking for. But if you do like what D&D has to offer, you’ll have a much easier time getting a game together because almost everyone who plays RPGs is familiar with it and willing - nay, eager, to play it. And so, when an edition change rolls around, people who like playing RPGs with groups of enthusiastic participants are strongly incentivized to try to advocate for any changes made to help better align the game with their play preferences.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Well yes. Stand and swing sucks.
> 
> I don't think your sarcasm means what you think it means.



Are you sure?  My sarcasm was to get across the idea that the D&D combat mechanics and board game-- martial _or_ spells-- isn't worth the time and energy to get up in arms about it.  Because D&D's focus should be about roleplaying and not the board game.

If you spend all your time focused on just mechanics and that's all you care about... then yes, you're going to be disappointed.  Because D&D isn't a board game and will never be a board game... and the WotC designers do not and will not spend every waking moment trying to hammer it into a perfectly balanced and asymmetric one.

So long as most players and the default playerbase is fine and okay with a perfectly adequate board game inside of a really fun roleplaying game... that's good enough for WotC.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> It was a ton of fun in 4e.



Yeah... maybe once every couple months.  Just like playing _RoboRally_ or _Cosmic Encounte_r is fun every couple of months... but I wouldn't want to play any of those board games every single week for years on end.

But I will happily play D&D every week because of all the stuff _other_ than the board game it gives me.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The D&D combat mini-game has never been that much fun in _any_ edition.  That's why every attempt that has been made to cordon it off into its own minatures game without all that pesky roleplaying getting in the way has failed miserably.  And which is why in my opinion trying to go out of the way to make the current board game "more fun" is kind of missing the point.
> 
> I know people like what they like and that's understandable.  I just don't know why people aren't happy going with those folks outside of WotC who are in fact making the "board game" more fun for people and just playing that.  Level Up, Kingdoms & Warfare, etc.  It's all out there ready to be played.  But waiting for WotC to decide to join them out there seems unnecessary... especially considering there's never been any indication they would do it, or at the very least to the level that folks seem to think it would need to be.



_ That_ I will agree with.  If WotC isn't doing what you want, leave it behind!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Are you sure?  My sarcasm was to get across the idea that the D&D combat mechanics and board game-- martial _or_ spells-- isn't worth the time and energy to get up in arms about it.  Because D&D's focus should be about roleplaying and not the board game.



I'm sure. Because the game should be about having fun with all aspects of the game and when the mechanics and what some might call in a needlessly derisive and antagonistic manner 'board game' are not fun, it is a problem worth discussing and yes 'getting up in arms over'.

And what's really not worth 'getting up in arms over' is constantly bashing people in the face about how one doesn't care. Why even be in a discussion to tell people not to have a discussion? What does that achieve?


----------



## Pedantic (Oct 7, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Funny part is I've never actually played it... I've just read and watched a crap-ton about it with the intention of finally getting around to it.
> 
> But I've been dragged into the cult of *Twilight Imperium 4th edition* and continually use that as my massively complex board game experience of choice, LOL.




Some caveats to a Root recommendation, spoilered to avoid the primary thread content:



Spoiler: Root Thoughts



Root is beautiful as an object and can be a lot of fun, but it's a game I wouldn't recommend without caveats. Notably, the game is a quite tight and brutal race for points that can feel very lopsided if the players aren't generally at the same experience level, and that the game heavily rewards understanding every faction around the table, as absolute score values are often not indicative of how much reach a faction may have in the last couple turns. It also requires a strong "beat up the leader" social contract, or it will fall apart.

All of which is to say, it's a great game, but a surprisingly cruel one with what can be a very abrupt ending and I've seen a lot of people aesthetically excited about it end up disappointed with the actual gameplay. In many ways, it feels more similar to something like a Splotter game than a conventional wargame.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Ok, let's try to gauge a reaction. This is a hot topic, but the discussion is spread out across threads. So let's just get a feel of it.
> 
> What is your response to the next changes?
> 
> All spellcasters prepare spells. With a fixed set of always prepared spells per class.



Excellent. As long as the Warlock breaks the rules. But also we don't know yet that this is even the case. It could be that they decided that the jack of all trades class and the "find the right tool for the job in the wilderness" class needed more spell versatility.


MoonSong said:


> The slots to prepare spells are fixed per level.



Probably good, but also not a needed change at all. Also I think Wizards will probably prepare more spells than other classes.


MoonSong said:


> All classes care about schools to know which spells to prepare.



I don't even see this as standardization in any way. It's just using the spell's existing categorizations to make the spell list for each class different in a way that doesn't require all new spell lists when they add a new spellcasting subclass to a martial class, or a new spellcasting class altogether, or to list out which spells are on which lists when they put out new spells. It's an arcane spell, of the evocation domain, we know wizards get it and rangers don't.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I think it’s a bit too soon to be saying they’re standardizing casting. We’ve seen all of two casters. It could be that this is only how experts prepare and cast spells, for example. It’s also possible that this first look at casting polls poorly and we don’t see it again.
> 
> For my part, I would prefer each casting class have unique casting mechanics. The Warlock is awesome because it actually does something different than every other caster. The Next playtest sorcerer was an entirely spell point-based caster and it was awesome. I’d love to see that make a comeback, while the wizard goes full-on classic prepare-each-use-of-a-spell-individually Vancian, the Cleric leans into Channel Divinity as its unique casting feature, the druid gets something else new… Of course I know none of that is going to happen in 5e (or 1D&D or whatever you want to call it). So, I guess the approach we see in the Experts UA is fine?



I might not have switched over to 5e if that had been the set up from the beginning, and I might not switch to the new revised rules if that were to be the model. 
Especially the Wizard getting old school vancian casting, which was terrible and the main reason I avoided the class until 4e. 

Even the Warlock should prepare spells and pull from the arcane spell list with subclasses getting always prepared spells, and cast spells differently in that they have fewer slots that auto-upcast and recharge quickly. I think that something more unique than just "recharge on short rest" would be more fun, but I'll accept "recharge on short rest, or regain one spell slot as an action PB/LR". Imagine if you regained a spell slot any time a creature cursed by you by any means is killed. That would be vastly more different from a wizard than the current warlock, IMO. 

Sorry to reply to the same topic in two threads.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I might not have switched over to 5e if that had been the set up from the beginning, and I might not switch to the new revised rules if that were to be the model.
> Especially the Wizard getting old school vancian casting, which was terrible and the main reason I avoided the class until 4e.



Old school Vancian was mostly just an example. But also, there are lots of people who like old-school Vancian, so having _a class_ that works that way, so people who like it can play it and people who don’t can choose not to, would be a good thing in my opinion. That would be one of the benefits of having diverse casting rules between classes.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Even the Warlock should prepare spells and pull from the arcane spell list with subclasses getting always prepared spells, and cast spells differently in that they have fewer slots that auto-upcast and recharge quickly.



Sure; I wouldn’t mind that with warlocks preparing spells that way they actually cast differently, with their limited auto-scaling spell slots that recover more quickly.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that something more unique than just "recharge on short rest" would be more fun, but I'll accept "recharge on short rest, or regain one spell slot as an action PB/LR". Imagine if you regained a spell slot any time a creature cursed by you by any means is killed. That would be vastly more different from a wizard than the current warlock, IMO.



Yeah, that’d be cool!


doctorbadwolf said:


> Sorry to reply to the same topic in two threads.



‘Sall good.


----------



## Shiroiken (Oct 7, 2022)

Having only seen the Experts, and not the Mages or Priests, I feel it's too early to make a determination.


----------



## niklinna (Oct 7, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> Having only seen the Experts, and not the Mages or Priests, I feel it's too early to make a determination.



But then what will we angst about in the meantime!?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Old school Vancian was mostly just an example. But also, there are lots of people who like old-school Vancian, so having _a class_ that works that way, so people who like it can play it and people who don’t can choose not to, would be a good thing in my opinion. That would be one of the benefits of having diverse casting rules between classes.



But it would make the class basically unplayable for others, because it's a needlessly annoying system that feels even more needlessly clunky and annoying standing next to what is now considered normal dnd casting. 
If you want to include it as an optional alternative to standard casting, fine. The game is better when each class that does magic doesn't do it so differently that a decent percentage of players will only ever want to play one or two casting classes, and will be dissatisfied with classes that they otherwise want to play, all just to make the game more arbitrarily different.


Charlaquin said:


> Sure; I wouldn’t mind that with warlocks preparing spells that way they actually cast differently, with their limited auto-scaling spell slots that recover more quickly.



And this is where I think it's better to differentiate. Prepared spells is just obviously better than known spells, but the 2014 phb treats them as equals. The only way to make known spells as good would be to give them too many known spells, which creates new problems. This way the classes all have the non-frustrating version of spellcasting, but you can do whatever you want with other elements of casting, like giving rangers the ability to ignore concentration on their signature spell and downcast a later level spell.


Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, that’d be cool!



We can dream lol


Charlaquin said:


> ‘Sall good.



cool


----------



## Vael (Oct 7, 2022)

Other ... ask again after I see the other classes.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> And this is where I think it's better to differentiate. Prepared spells is just obviously better than known spells, but the 2014 phb treats them as equals. The only way to make known spells as good would be to give them too many known spells, which creates new problems. This way the classes all have the non-frustrating version of spellcasting, but you can do whatever you want with other elements of casting, like giving rangers the ability to ignore concentration on their signature spell and downcast a later level spell.



Not really, 2014 treats known spells as somehow better than prepared. If it treated them as equal, sorcerers and bards would get an equal amount of know spells to wizards and clerics prepared ones. 

If knowing enough known spells to be equivalent to a certain amount of prepared spells is somehow broken, how is that same amount of prepared spells not equally broken? Forcing everybody to prepare isn't a fix but a copout, and one very antithetical to the nature of sorcerers. A sorcerer that prepares spells is not a sorcerer IMO.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> But it would make the class basically unplayable for others, because it's a needlessly annoying system that feels even more needlessly clunky and annoying standing next to what is now considered normal dnd casting.
> If you want to include it as an optional alternative to standard casting, fine. The game is better when each class that does magic doesn't do it so differently that a decent percentage of players will only ever want to play one or two casting classes, and will be dissatisfied with classes that they otherwise want to play, all just to make the game more arbitrarily different.



It’s not arbitrarily different. It’s so people who like different things can all play characters that suit their tastes. Don’t like vancian casting, don’t play the vancian class. Don’t like AEDU, don’t play the AEDU class. Etc.


doctorbadwolf said:


> And this is where I think it's better to differentiate. Prepared spells is just obviously better than known spells, but the 2014 phb treats them as equals. The only way to make known spells as good would be to give them too many known spells, which creates new problems. This way the classes all have the non-frustrating version of spellcasting, but you can do whatever you want with other elements of casting, like giving rangers the ability to ignore concentration on their signature spell and downcast a later level spell.



I agree with you, personally. But you know, earlier today I was talking with a colleague about a D&D character she was thinking about making. Had a neat story idea but wasn’t sure what class to play. Someone else mentioned druid and she said, “oh, but is that one of the casters that has to prepare their spells every day?” I get the impression @Vaalingrade feels similarly. They might say something similar about prepared casting to what you said above about classic vancian. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some classes those people could play where they don’t have to do that, _and_ there were classes you and I could play that do prepare spells?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 7, 2022)

I am not convinced we have seen the last word on caster mechanics. Wizards have thrown stuff out there before only to pull it back in the final release.
I would like there to be at least one spells known class for simplicity sake, like the sorcerer traditionally was but the sorcerer has too few spells now. 
I would not like all the casters classes to the same spell prepared mechanics. Not hate but definitely consider a bit meh!
I do not hate it but not particularly fond of it either but reserving judgement until I know more.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I get the impression @Vaalingrade feels similarly.



They tried to make me play a prep caster once. I threw a handful of d6's in the groups face to dazzle them before fleeing via plate-glass window, falling two stories onto the roof of a 1995 Toyota Camry, injuring the occupants before leaving d4s strewn across the ground to prevent pursuit.

I spent the next five days hiding in the basement computer lab of the Humanities building, picking glass out of my window wounds and subsisting by eating the upholstery out of the instructor chairs as well as one particularly unaware TA, and drinking condensation from the vents.

I was eventually lured out by my gf with a container of takeout sweet and sour shrimp and a bottle of Mountain Dew Pitch Black. I was restrained using lacrosse sticks and a laundry basket and contained in the dorm for the next week until I calmed down enough to resume communication via words.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 7, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> All spellcasters prepare spells. With a fixed set of always prepared spells per class.



Dislike. I have never liked spell prep from an aesthetic point of view, and the selection of known spells is one of the things that can differentiate casters of the same class. I'd rather see more classes move toward known spells than the other way around.

It's not a huge deal to me, but it is a mild negative.



MoonSong said:


> The slots to prepare spells are fixed per level.



I'm cool with this. IMO, the most compelling argument for caster superiority in 5E is their sheer versatility; this change is a sharp constraint on that versatility. It also eliminates the impact of ability scores on the number of spells you can prepare, and I'm always happy to see the impact of ability scores reduced.



MoonSong said:


> All classes care about schools to know which spells to prepare.



Oh hell no. The eight schools are excellent as wizardly traditions, but they clash badly with the flavor of every other caster class, and there are far too many spells that don't fit neatly into any of the eight. Limit them to the wizard family, please.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 7, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I am not convinced we have seen the last word on caster mechanics. Wizards have thrown stuff out there before only to pull it back in the final release.



Not only have we not seen the last word, we've only just seen the first word.  And given that there have already been rules changes between this playtest packet and the previous one, it's safe to say that they're going to evolve quite a bit.


----------



## niklinna (Oct 8, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Not only have we not seen the last word, we've only just seen the first word.  And given that there have already been rules changes between this playtest packet and the previous one, it's safe to say that they're going to evolve quite a bit.



Vote early, vote often!


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2022)

Standardizing casters is one thing. I don't like it, but I can appreciate the virtues of it (especially if there are still some outliers). WotC's poor presentation of the subtle differences between different spellcasting classes in 5e sewed a lot of confusion for new players. The better solution would be sidebars highlighting differences and perhaps hiring some writers with a background in education, but just eliminating the differences is also a solution to something that I believe was actually a problem. 

BUT standardizing them to prepare spells _directly proportional to their spell slots at each level_ is ungodly stupid. To what, save a column on the damned progression charts? Someone at WotC just needs to deeply reflect on what they're even doing. Now casters have to suck more at level 1, get an unneeded power boost through most the game, and, at the height of the power, will have an ultimately very disappointing final few levels because they prepare so little variety in very high level spells. Casters are just more quadratic, while ultimately less satisfying.

And there is, of course, the three spell list system. As presented so far this just gives an overwhelming amount of choice to new players (or players new to a particular list), and makes choosing Bard spells (which requires finding the spells of certain schools among the Arcane list) without online tools, a guide, or system mastery, a herculean task compared to just reading the Bard list.

I voted dealbreaker. I don't know if it will actually be a dealbreaker, even if it makes it to the finished product, because that goes to the eventual strengths of the new edition overall. I don't know if there is some redeeming quality I will eventually find in this whole, vast, seemingly aimless reworking of 5e that actually sells me on it. So far though, it just seems like a bunch of random changes to ensure that everyone has to buy new books to play at a 5.5 table. There are a few changes I like, but none that seem vital. Basically the only thing I wanted out of a new edition was seeing the late 5e tweaks in Tasha's and such integrated into the PHB for convenience sake, but there is a limit to how much stuff that I dislike I'll put up with for the sake of a more concise book. The playtests still have a few more chances to wow me (not as many as there will be playtest documents, because I'm certainly not going to read them all if they don't start giving me something I like), but so far I am generally unimpressed, and if I had to pick one thing to be a dealbreaker it would be the new approach to spellcasting.  It's not the thing I hate the most (even after they've seemingly walked back the alternate crit rules, it offends me that it even briefly existed), but so far it's the thing I hate that will be too deeply ingrained in the system to houserule around.

I might have been sold on radically reworking a bunch of rules to rules I didn't like as much if it was for a consistent greater purpose I cared about like accessibility. The saving grace of many compromised and flawed 5e designs is that they served accessibilty in some way. But I don't see that sort of overriding purpose so far. If the purpose of standardizing spellcasting, level progression, etc. is simplicity, I worry that WotC has confused structural simplicity and accessibility (as many commenters do) and they are NOT the same thing at all, or even as closely related as they might seem. Yes it is conceptually similar on a grand, archetectural scale for the system to only have three spell lists, and for people trying to achieve absolute memorize-the-lists system mastery it simplifies things, but that sort of simplicity doesn't make it more accessible to new, casual, or really just non-obsessive players, instead it just expands what needs to be mastered to roll up a character.


----------



## Leatherhead (Oct 8, 2022)

The more I think about it,  the more I agree with the principle behind the change: known spell casters just pick the "good spells", which forces severe levels of similarities in classes that are supposed to be defined by how unique they are, and effectively gates them off from having the fun niche spells. 

The implementation of the change, however, isnt the best. Ritual casting should be a core spellcasting mechanism for all casters, (and arguably non casters as well), they just need to greatly expand the Ritual casting list.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 8, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Standardizing casters is one thing. I don't like it, but I can appreciate the virtues of it (especially if there are still some outliers). WotC's poor presentation of the subtle differences between different spellcasting classes in 5e sewed a lot of confusion for new players. The better solution would be sidebars highlighting differences and perhaps hiring some writers with a background in education, but just eliminating the differences is also a solution to something that I believe was actually a problem.
> 
> BUT standardizing them to prepare spells _directly proportional to their spell slots at each level_ is ungodly stupid. To what, save a column on the damned progression charts? Someone at WotC just needs to deeply reflect on what they're even doing. Now casters have to suck more at level 1, get an unneeded power boost through most the game, and, at the height of the power, will have an ultimately very disappointing final few levels because they prepare so little variety in very high level spells. Casters are just more quadratic, while ultimately less satisfying.
> 
> ...



The shift from vancian prep by slot to 5e style spontaneous actually had negative side effects, this repairs it.  On top of losing a lot of prep slots as levels progressed the 5e style also squeezes out low level niche spells into a "never prepared" when before they were "can't hurt to have one" instead of  "really does hurt because using that prep slot is squeezing out a maybe important higher level spell"


----------



## Baron Opal II (Oct 8, 2022)

I have no problem with standardized spell _lists_, and having classes use those specific lists.

However, I would (and do) expect different classes to have different mechanics to access those spells. Wizards memorize, sorcerers reflexively know, warlocks have invocations that might mimic spells, &c. We really don't know what the mechanics for the different classes are yet, and how they will change, if much at all.

What we see of the ranger and bard I expect are stock spell selections to add some consistency to playtesting. Other mechanics are being previewed and I expect that they are simply removing a variable. I have picked up no indication that spellcasters are going to be standardized beyond "source" lists. Even that is subject to specializing, where ranger spells are going to all be from the Nature list, and there may be some that druids have access to and some they don't.

And, I would expect bards (and warlocks should, based on pact) to be able to have the broadest selection of spells given the appropriate subclass.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The shift from vancian prep by slot to 5e style spontaneous actually had negative side effects, this repairs it.  On top of losing a lot of prep slots as levels progressed the 5e style also squeezes out low level niche spells into a "never prepared" when before they were "can't hurt to have one" instead of  "really does hurt because using that prep slot is squeezing out a maybe important higher level spell"



You prepare the niche spells on the days when you have a particular scheme in mind for them. I don't see much difference.

And I'm not opining on what made sense in a pre-5e system or the relative merits of 5e by comparison. OneD&D so far is keeping the same lower number of slots, and just weirdly fixing the spells prepared to it for no particular reason. I don't see how that repairs anything. Now if a prepared caster decides they need a paricular obscure level 3 spell for a paricular scheme, say Feign Death, that is one of their 3 level 3 spells for the day (exclusive of special class or subclass bonus options), and level 3 is brimming with amazing spells. This is much more restrictive on using an obscure spell than 5e where a prepared caster could boot a prepared spell of any level. 5e is still more restrictive than prior editions where there were more slots, but this doesn't fix that (to the extent it's a problem) except to the extent that if your list had a real dud level of spells you'd be obligated to prepare 1-3 of them anyway.

Of course it's hard to gauge because so far we've only seen it in the context of memorized casters who are being turned into prepared casters, which makes them much less restricted under this scheme on the whole. In overall power level this is an upgrade, even if an unnecessarily complex limitation.

Upon further reflection I also have to ask WotC what ludonarrative they are actually telling with the weird retro-vancian rework of neo-vancian casting. The spell slot and preparation system has always been a metagame conceit, but having spells prepared proportionate to spell slots but not actually tied to them seems like a whole additional level of gamey abstraction, telling no game narrative, but rather just preferring a slightly simpler progression grid over actual balance or actual meaningful simplicity or accessibility.

Playtest what a good, balanced number of spells for each class to have prepared at each character level is, and give them that number in a column on the character progression chart. That's all they've got to do.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Not really, 2014 treats known spells as somehow better than prepared. If it treated them as equal, sorcerers and bards would get an equal amount of know spells to wizards and clerics prepared ones.



That is the opposite of treating known spells as better than prepared. 

The game treats them as equal, in spite of the spells themselves being unchanged, and the only difference being that one gets less versatility and fewer spells castable. 


MoonSong said:


> If knowing enough known spells to be equivalent to a certain amount of prepared spells is somehow broken, how is that same amount of prepared spells not equally broken?



What on earth are you talking about? I can’t parse this in any way that follows from any previous statement in this thread, much less in the post you’re replying to. 

Maybe you misread my post? 


MoonSong said:


> Forcing everybody to prepare isn't a fix but a copout, and one very antithetical to the nature of sorcerers. A sorcerer that prepares spells is not a sorcerer IMO.



If sorcerers prepare spells, I’ll be willing to have the sorcerer discussion. Not until then. 


Charlaquin said:


> It’s not arbitrarily different. It’s so people who like different things can all play characters that suit their tastes. Don’t like vancian casting, don’t play the vancian class. Don’t like AEDU, don’t play the AEDU class. Etc.



But that is exactly arbitrarily different. It’s different literally so that a different option exists. 


Charlaquin said:


> I agree with you, personally. But you know, earlier today I was talking with a colleague about a D&D character she was thinking about making. Had a neat story idea but wasn’t sure what class to play. Someone else mentioned druid and she said, “oh, but is that one of the casters that has to prepare their spells every day?” I get the impression @Vaalingrade feels similarly. They might say something similar about prepared casting to what you said above about classic vancian. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some classes those people could play where they don’t have to do that, _and_ there were classes you and I could play that do prepare spells?



That would be terrible, IMO, for the reasons I said upthread (I think). Variant Spellcasting types in the PHB as a player facing option would be rad as hell. Making a whole class unplayable to some folks just so other folks can have their spell points caster would be the worst of all possible options, IMO.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 8, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> You prepare the niche spells on the days when you have a particular scheme in mind for them. I don't see much difference.
> 
> And I'm not opining on what made sense in a pre-5e system or the relative merits of 5e by comparison. OneD&D so far is keeping the same lower number of slots, and just weirdly fixing the spells prepared to it for no particular reason. I don't see how that repairs anything. Now if a prepared caster decides they need a paricular obscure level 3 spell for a paricular scheme, say Feign Death, that is one of their 3 level 3 spells for the day (exclusive of special class or subclass bonus options), and level 3 is brimming with amazing spells. This is much more restrictive on using an obscure spell than 5e where a prepared caster could boot a prepared spell of any level. 5e is still more restrictive than prior editions where there were more slots, but this doesn't fix that (to the extent it's a problem) except to the extent that if your list had a real dud level of spells you'd be obligated to prepare 1-3 of them anyway.
> 
> ...



It has nothing to do with what made sense pre-5e.  Those spells still exist in 5e just the opportunity cost to prepare them is much much higher than it was before, "I could prepare it & we could come back tomorrow" is not the same thing as having a niche spell prepared at a low opportunity cost & casting it when the niche comes up.  5e full casters lost up to 11 prep slots total, the flex-vancian prep solves that & makes room for those other spells at a justifiable opportunity cost as lower level slots start losing their value for the spells they once were used for


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It has nothing to do with what made sense pre-5e.  Those spells still exist in 5e just the opportunity cost to prepare them is much much higher than it was before, "I could prepare it & we could come back tomorrow" is not the same thing as having a niche spell prepared at a low opportunity cost & casting it when the niche comes up.  5e full casters lost up to 11 prep slots total, the flex-vancian prep solves that & makes room for those other spells at a justifiable opportunity cost as lower level slots start losing their value for the spells they once were used for



Look it's a little hard to conceptualize because, as I mentioned before, we have only gotten write-ups so far of classes that were not prepared before, but I just don't think "niche" spells are going to get prepared by the prepared casters any more than they already were. You're still just going to prepare the two or three most generally useful spells of each level unless you have a plan to do something specific with a niche spell. It's now a little less restrictive in terms of overall number, but more restrictive in terms of each level. Nystul's Magic Aura, or whatever you consider a niche spell is still not going to make the cut at the expense of Invisibilty, Suggestion, or Mirror Image on a daily basis. I would argue that at levels with lots of great spells (like 1-3) this actually makes it a lot harder for someone to justify preparing a niche spell unless they are 100% sure they are using it that day.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> But that is exactly arbitrarily different. It’s different literally so that a different option exists.



It isn’t arbitrary, it’s for a very specific purpose, to give players options to play the way they like.


doctorbadwolf said:


> That would be terrible, IMO, for the reasons I said upthread (I think). Variant Spellcasting types in the PHB as a player facing option would be rad as hell. Making a whole class unplayable to some folks just so other folks can have their spell points caster would be the worst of all possible options, IMO.



I don’t understand why you would even want to play (for example) the Vancian class if you don’t like Vancian magic. So what if it’s “unplayable” for you, when the reason it’s unplayable is that it’s something you wouldn’t want to play. You can just not play it, and everyone wins.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> If sorcerers prepare spells, I’ll be willing to have the sorcerer discussion. Not until then.



Not a betting bunny, but I'd bet carrots to dollars that it is the designer's intention. There is nothing so far that is reassuring otherwise, and we have lots of antecedents that indicate it is the case. The multiclassing rules, the UAs in the run towards Tasha's,  the rewrite of Magic Initiate, and the language of Crawford during the videos. 

I'm confident that they intend to have a sorcerer that will prepare spells. So the discussion is unavoidable, and I'd rather have it sooner rather than later. Particularly when later could mean ending up with another rushed design round away from the public eye and an equally underwhelming design.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Oct 8, 2022)

Don't all* casters in 5e prepare Level + Attribute bonus in spells? Don't you have to decide to make room for niche spells regardless?

* Not warlock and bard, obviously.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Not a betting bunny, but I'd bet carrots to dollars that it is the designer's intention. There is nothing so far that is reassuring otherwise, and we have lots of antecedents that indicate it is the case. The multiclassing rules, the UAs in the run towards Tasha's,  the rewrite of Magic Initiate, and the language of Crawford during the videos.
> 
> I'm confident that they intend to have a sorcerer that will prepare spells. So the discussion is unavoidable, and I'd rather have it sooner rather than later. Particularly when later could mean ending up with another rushed design round away from the public eye and an equally underwhelming design.



I don’t doubt that it’s the developers’ intent. However, I think it’s far from unavoidable. It’s no accident that they showed it off on the Bard and Ranger first. They want to get the audience’s impression of the flex-Vancian system _before_ they put forward a sorcerer that uses it. So that if the system itself proves unpopular, they can pivot on the sorcerer (and, you know, other casting classes) and try something else with them. But if it proves popular, I’m sure we’ll see it on more casters (possibly all casters) in the future.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 8, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Not a betting bunny, but I'd bet carrots to dollars that it is the designer's intention. There is nothing so far that is reassuring otherwise, and we have lots of antecedents that indicate it is the case. The multiclassing rules, the UAs in the run towards Tasha's,  the rewrite of Magic Initiate, and the language of Crawford during the videos.
> 
> *I'm confident that they intend to have a sorcerer that will prepare spells. So the discussion is unavoidable, and I'd rather have it sooner rather than later. Particularly when later could mean ending up with another rushed design round away from the public eye and an equally underwhelming design.*



I suspect the same.  Going by the wording of elements that we have in the packet and what sorcerer has had in the past  I wouldn't be surprised to see some of this for the sorcerer:

May go back to being con based as it was in at least part of Next
Will follow a similar flex-vancian style of prep that bard & ranger uses
possibly with a wider (or similarly narrowed) selection from the arcane list

The sorcerer will go back to having more spell slots


Spoiler: ie this was their 3.5 progression for example of 'more'



——————— Spells per Day ———————————
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
3 — — — — — — — —
4 — — — — — — — —
5 — — — — — — — —
6 3 — — — — — — —
6 4 — — — — — — —
6 5 3 — — — — — —
6 6 4 — — — — — —
6 6 5 3 — — — — —
6 6 6 4 — — — — —
6 6 6 5 3 — — — —
6 6 6 6 4 — — — —
6 6 6 6 5 3 — — —
6 6 6 6 6 4 — — —
6 6 6 6 6 5 3 — —
6 6 6 6 6 6 4 — —
6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3 —
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 —
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6


Or they will have the same number of prep slots with a bunch of sorcerery points each long rest that they can use to create slots
Will almost certainly shed the old learn 1 spell/level & just prep from the arcane list or a selection of it like bard& ranger do.
Be the home to swordmage & other gish flavored caster archetypes with dragon sorc & such following suit  (especially if it's con based)
This might go with a shift from 1/1 caster progression to 2/3 caster progression to make room in the class budget for more powerful bloodline themed abilities to fit those


The wizard:

Might have a different spellbook growth to limit dip power since so many ritual spells are first level (ie start with 2-5 in spellbook & gain 3/level with some archetypes giving school or theme based spells on top)
or that will be similar to now but there will be much better guidance on ensuring scrolls spellbooks & places to copy spells from

Will have spell slot numbers & progression similar to they have now
Will have a quantum or semiquantum spellbook where much if not all of the spells within are always considered prepared
Will be fragile & squishy again to a meaningful degree either directly or via other system changes that seem likely
Will be the home of pure caster type archetypes that already tend to lean towards wizards
Those archetypes are likely to bring more oomph to spells within their niche  that is made available by rebalancing existing & often borked spells as we've seen a couple examples of already.

Warlock & priest group I have no guesses on yet.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> May go back to being con based as it was in at least part of Next



It has never been con-based. Only in derivative games like Radiance. Warlock was Con based in 4e, but sorcerer has never been that.



tetrasodium said:


> Will follow a similar flex-vancian style of prep that bard & ranger uses
> possibly with a wider (or similarly narrowed) selection from the arcane list
> 
> The sorcerer will go back to having more spell slots
> ...



I see these as very likely to happen. Which I personally don't like.


tetrasodium said:


> Be the home to swordmage & other gish flavored caster archetypes with dragon sorc & such following suit (especially if it's con based)
> 
> This might go with a shift from 1/1 caster progression to 2/3 caster progression to make room in the class budget for more powerful bloodline themed abilities to fit those



On the other hand, I don't think these have a shot at even showing up.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> It isn’t arbitrary, it’s for a very specific purpose, to give players options to play the way they like.



There are other ways to do that, like allowing one class to use different Spellcasting methods. 


Charlaquin said:


> I don’t understand why you would even want to play (for example) the Vancian class if you don’t like Vancian magic. So what if it’s “unplayable” for you, when the reason it’s unplayable is that it’s something you wouldn’t want to play. You can just not play it, and everyone wins.



No class is just their Spellcasting specifics. I’m never playing a Paladin rather than a ranger *just* because I prefer prepared casting, and even the wizard is more than just how they learn and prepare spells. 

I want to play a wizard over a sorcerer because of the narrative and themes of the two classes and how wizard fits my character.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Honestly, I would be surprised if these kind of design aspects are even on the table for change.



I thought so at first, but I think they realized that if they didn't at least change some stuff (hopefully for the better) that the edition was going to flop hard due to no major incentive for 5e players to buy it.  I think they won't take big chances, but I have higher hopes they'll make some significant changes than when they first announced it and backward compatibility (likely to be mostly a lie IMO).  I think the playtest is to really get an idea about which ones stick around.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> There are other ways to do that, like allowing one class to use different Spellcasting methods.



Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, because this sounds like exactly what I’m proposing…


doctorbadwolf said:


> No class is just their Spellcasting specifics. I’m never playing a Paladin rather than a ranger *just* because I prefer prepared casting, and even the wizard is more than just how they learn and prepare spells.



Sure, but if I want to play someone who gained magical powers through their bloodline but I don’t like the way sorcerers work mechanically, nothing actually stops me from playing that character using the wizard mechanics. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> I want to play a wizard over a sorcerer because of the narrative and themes of the two classes and how wizard fits my character.



And that’s all well and good, but the narrative and themes tied to a class can be changed much more easily than the mechanics can.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, because this sounds like exactly what I’m proposing…



Not at all. A sorcerer would work the same as a wizard in terms of the basic Spellcasting feature, and be distinguished by other things that modify thier Spellcasting, just like it mostly is now. 

Both classes would have the option of switching to spell points, or a couple other variants presented in the Spellcasting chapter. 


Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but if I want to play someone who gained magical powers through their bloodline but I don’t like the way sorcerers work mechanically, nothing actually stops me from playing that character using the wizard mechanics.



Not everyone is okay with completely reflavoring a class. 


Charlaquin said:


> And that’s all well and good, but the narrative and themes tied to a class can be changed much more easily than the mechanics can.



The mechanics of a class should be designed to serve the narrative and times of the class. It’s good that warlocks completely break the normal rules of casting because that is basically their story.   Making one class essentially harder or more frustrating to play for the express purpose of making its Spellcasting different for no thematic reason, is not something you’ll ever convince me to be okay with.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not at all. A sorcerer would work the same as a wizard in terms of the basic Spellcasting feature, and be distinguished by other things that modify thier Spellcasting, just like it mostly is now.



I guess it depends on how much leeway you give “things that modify their spellcasting.” I mean, personally I would file something like classic Vancian under that description, but it seems you wouldn’t.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Both classes would have the option of switching to spell points, or a couple other variants presented in the Spellcasting chapter.



Sure, sure, variant rules are a thing, but I’m more concerned with the base class design.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Not everyone is okay with completely reflavoring a class.



Ok?


doctorbadwolf said:


> The mechanics of a class should be designed to serve the narrative and times of the class. It’s good that warlocks completely break the normal rules of casting because that is basically their story.



I agree!


doctorbadwolf said:


> Making one class essentially harder or more frustrating to play for the express purpose of making its Spellcasting different for no thematic reason, is not something you’ll ever convince me to be okay with.



Well that’s not something I’m trying to convince you to be ok with. Again, I’m not suggesting doing it for no thematic reason. I do think classic Vancian is thematically fitting for D&D wizards. And anything that can be said of classic Vancian being more frustrating to play than neo-Vancian can also be said of prepared casting being more frustrating to play than known casting. And for that matter, can be said of all forms of Vancian being more frustrating to play than AEDU. But anyway, classic Vancian was just an example, I’m not specifically advocating for Wizards to go back to that. What I’m advocating for is different classes to cast spells in meaningfully different ways, as suits their narrative and themes. The 5e warlock is a great example of this, as was the Next playtest sorcerer. The 5e sorcerer less so, and the 1D&D sorcerer _much_ less so if this “flex Vancian” spell preparation style we see in the Expert classes ends up being shared by all 1D&D casters (which I’ll reiterate I’m not yet convinced will be the case).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I guess it depends on how much leeway you give “things that modify their spellcasting.” I mean, personally I would file something like classic Vancian under that description, but it seems you wouldn’t.
> 
> Sure, sure, variant rules are a thing, but I’m more concerned with the base class design.
> 
> ...



The Next sorcerer being on an entirely different resource model was, IMO, terrible. The current 5e version is good, other than being too limited. I’d prefer it get more spells known and the ability to do meta magic much more, but it’s otherwise very well designed. 

But part of spellcasting being well designed in 5e is that even with the warlock you know what spell levels are and what a spell slot is and why it matters that you’re casting at a higher level, and how spells known works, because all Spellcasting has the same fundamentals with occasional exceptions, rather than each class reinventing the wheel.


----------



## fuindordm (Oct 8, 2022)

Just tossing out an idea, although I think it would be too far astray from mainstream 5E:

Why not have 4 spellcasting classes that are organized around how they access magic, not the spell lists? For example:

Hermetic magician:  "wizard-like" mechanics:  Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal. Access to all schools. Highest number of prepared spells, needs a spellbook (prayer book, collection of fetishes...), good at researching new spells and ritual magic. VSM components can be replaced with others appropriate to the tradition.
Natural magician: "sorcerer-like" mechanics. Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal. Access to all schools but half of spells known come from theme/bloodline/other justification. Lots of flexibility via metamagic and class abilities.
Pact magician: "warlock-like" mechanics. Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal.  Prepares spells with help of patron (e.g. familiar, communing with patron...). Half-caster in terms of spell slots. Invocations make up the power difference with respect to full casters.
Hedge magician: "ranger-like" mechanics. Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal. Known spells because not enough theoretical knowledge to generalize the tricks they have picked up. Half-caster in terms of spell slots.  Various class abilities make up the power difference.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2022)

What if, it is a seemless choice?

Any class can choose how they cast its spells:
• 5e spontanteous slots
• 1e vancian slots
• spell point system



The short-rest spell point system balances robustly.

Here are the basic features for the spell point system that refreshes per short rest.

• Spell point pool = level + 1 points
• Cost of spell = slot
• Max points per casting = highest spell available
• Short Rest refreshes pool to max

For example.

A level 5 Wizard has 6 spell points.
Fireball is a 3-slot spell, so costs 3 points to cast.
The 3rd slot is the highest spell available to a level 5 Wizard.
So each casting cannot exceed 3 points.
A level 5 Wizard can cast two Fireballs, but then needs to refresh.
After each short rest, the spell point pool returns to 6 points.

This spell point system is so balanced, it even works for the highest slots of 6th-, 7th-, 8th-, and 9th-slot spells.

The spell point system is so balanced and so simple, it can be the default for all full caster classes.

I am skeptical about a balanced long-rest spell point system, because the excess of spell points allows overpowered novas. But the short-rest spell point system works great.

Since points and slots turn out to be the same thing, such as a 3-slot Fireball is a 3-point Fireball, one can use the term "slot" to mean spell points. A Fireball costs 3 slots to cast.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 8, 2022)

2e tried limits to spells based on spheres and it was sloppily implemented with unforeseen weird combos, such as clerics getting access to reincarnation and druids not.  I'm generally not a fan but if they pick a number of core baseline spells that are always available (even if from a non-standard list) it might work out ok.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Oct 8, 2022)

I feel like they could’ve just said _‘all classes can either be known or memorised casters, known gets more spells accessed but is locked into them between levels, memorised has less spells accessed but can switch them up between every day, these classes are typically known casters and these casters are typically memorised.’_


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The Next sorcerer being on an entirely different resource model was, IMO, terrible. The current 5e version is good, other than being too limited. I’d prefer it get more spells known and the ability to do meta magic much more, but it’s otherwise very well designed.



Oh, I couldn’t disagree more.


doctorbadwolf said:


> But part of spellcasting being well designed in 5e is that even with the warlock you know what spell levels are and what a spell slot is and why it matters that you’re casting at a higher level, and how spells known works, because all Spellcasting has the same fundamentals with occasional exceptions, rather than each class reinventing the wheel.



That’s all also true of spell point based casting…


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 8, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm sure. Because the game should be about having fun with all aspects of the game and when the mechanics and what some might call in a needlessly derisive and antagonistic manner 'board game' are not fun, it is a problem worth discussing and yes 'getting up in arms over'.
> 
> And what's really not worth 'getting up in arms over' is constantly bashing people in the face about how one doesn't care. Why even be in a discussion to tell people not to have a discussion? What does that achieve?



It's to try and get people to lighten up.  The way some of the folks here react to the most miniscule of changes makes one think they're very lifeblood is pumped into this game and that WotC is trying to drain it out of them like some sort of gaming vampire.  Heck... just seeing the way some people are getting all bent out of shape over the Ranger changes (or lack thereof) is proof to me of that.

If people want to get up in arms about the game, that is more than their right and I'm never going to stop them from speaking their piece.  But if they do that... they should be very secure in their beliefs that their getting up in arms is the right decision.  So secure in fact that when some rando internet schmuck like me says their reactions are ridiculous and they are making way too many mountains out of molehills... they should be able to keep their chin up high and know that they are right despite what I might say to them.

But if someone gets defensive that another person dares to say that their reaction to these things are overblown and maybe they need to realize that the design of this game isn't for them specifically and WotC has no desire to cater to them specifically... then that's just too bad.  Their beliefs are not above criticism, just like my beliefs can be safely ignored by them if they think I'm full of crap.  And believe you me... there are plenty of people who think my opinions are full of crap too.  But that doesn't bother me and it doesn't stop me from posting what I feel is correct.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Oct 8, 2022)

Some parts I like, some parts I hate.

Standardising spells prepared and spell slots is something I like. It heavily reduces book keeping and helps newer players know how many slots/spells they have. Making everyone prepared casters is cool too. At this point, spells known was just a holdover from previous editions, and classes saddled with it were just worse than classes without it.

In theory like the standardised spell lists. With classes picking from power sources and schools. However in practice it's just not working without a 4th power source. It cripples bards identity and requires a patch to be glued on in the form of songs of restoration. Lack of a 4th power source also ensures that they will never be able to add a psionic based class for the rest of this edition. And if they do it will never see support as its power source won't be in the PHB.

An occult power source for bards, warlocks, psions, and/or a psionic sorcerer subclass is needed to make the system come together.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 8, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> Some caveats to a Root recommendation, spoilered to avoid the primary thread content:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are not the first to make this point about the game that I've read... which I think is part of the reason I've never decided to jump in with both feet.  Thank you for adding another voice confirming my understanding!  The idea that there's no "base gameplay" to learn that applies across the board makes the idea of having to play every faction many times each a little daunting and I just don't know if I need to learn a game like that that much.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 8, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> I feel like they could’ve just said _‘all classes can either be known or memorised casters, known gets more spells accessed but is locked into them between levels, memorised has less spells accessed but can switch them up between every day, these classes are typically known casters and these casters are typically memorised.’_



I feel the reason they're moving from known to prepared is that WotC feels that players shouldn't feel constrained or forced to make choices and trade-offs.  This way, it doesn't matter what spells you choose, since you can choose something different the next day.  It also simplifies the game, which seems to be their top priority.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Oh, I couldn’t disagree more.
> 
> That’s all also true of spell point based casting…



Only if spell point casting is the default system used by all spellcasters. 

Idk how my point is being missed, so I’ll try again. 

My contention is not that 5e prepared spells caster is inherently better than other models as a baseline. It is my preferred one, but what my contention actually is, is that it is better for the game for all spellcasters to have things in common by default, and keep alternate systems as options that any class can switch to. 

Rather than a spell points class, fully think out the spell points system so that it is fairly balanced on any spellcaster. 

I also hate spell points outside of video games, so there is that. The only way I’d be down is if it were simply 1-1 spell slots to spell points, and even then I’d rather use the current spell slot system.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 8, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I feel the reason they're moving from known to prepared is that WotC feels that players shouldn't feel constrained or forced to make choices and trade-offs.  This way, it doesn't matter what spells you choose, since you can choose something different the next day.  It also simplifies the game, which seems to be their top priority.



Doesn't fit fiction for me.  _IF_ this is the way ahead;

Dont need wizard schools (automatically know and can prepare all spells on list, technically including new ones as books are published)
Dont need to research existing spells (see above)
Dont need to acquire enemy spell books (see above)
Dont need to trade or purchase spells (see above)

Somebody across the continent relearns the ancient spells if Wundabar, poof* they are on the list, all wizards can prep.
     *wait, they were always on the list and prepare able.

I mean I don't think I've seen any limit on spell prepare able for clerics, technically they know ALL of them (or are granted access to).  At least not written in the books anywhere.

Now, I am tongue in cheek and exaggerating for effect, as _IF_ they do this, I already have a solution, the same thing I do for clerics (might have said this upthread already, my bad)

Clerics can only prepare from the Player's Handbook.  All other cleric spells in other books are esoteric mysteries, proprietary to certain sects or religions.

_IF_ this goes through as folks speculate, I will do the same for wizard's.  PH are the commonly known spells.  I already remove teleport type spells for the current camapign from the 2 free spells per level, so I even have precedent.

BL:  Won't like it, won't slow us down or cause any distress.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 8, 2022)

Oh, and the oddity of a sorcerer born of ice and knowing ice spells, deciding to go full fire the next day, doesn't sit well with us.

Meh...


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 8, 2022)

SkidAce said:


> Doesn't fit fiction for me.  _IF_ this is the way ahead;
> 
> Dont need wizard schools (automatically know and can prepare all spells on list, technically including new ones as books are published)
> Dont need to research existing spells (see above)
> ...



I don't like it either.  I'm speculating on WotC's motives, not supporting them.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 8, 2022)

SkidAce said:


> Oh, and the oddity of a sorcerer born of ice and knowing ice spells, deciding to go full fire the next day, doesn't sit well with us.
> 
> Meh...



I know you have said that you plan to rule 0 everything that doesn't work for you, but, have you considered filling the upcoming survey?


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 8, 2022)

I will indeed, with a more succinct and coherent form of what I posted above.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Only if spell point casting is the default system used by all spellcasters.



Not at all. You could have a slot caster and a point caster in the same party without problems because both are built on the same underlying system. Spell slots and levels matter just as much to 5e’s point-based casting the way it’s built.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Idk how my point is being missed, so I’ll try again.
> 
> My contention is not that 5e prepared spells caster is inherently better than other models as a baseline. It is my preferred one, but what my contention actually is, is that it is better for the game for all spellcasters to have things in common by default, and keep alternate systems as options that any class can switch to.



I understand that point, and disagree with it. I would rather each class have its own mechanical identity.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Rather than a spell points class, fully think out the spell points system so that it is fairly balanced on any spellcaster.



I mean, I think that’s a good alternative option to have in the DMG or something, as we do now.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I also hate spell points outside of video games, so there is that. The only way I’d be down is if it were simply 1-1 spell slots to spell points, and even then I’d rather use the current spell slot system.



Sure. Again, spell slots are one example of a casting system a class might have; I’m not advocating for it specifically, so much as the idea of having multiple different casters that work multiple different ways.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 8, 2022)

I mostly don't care about the spell preparation vs known, nor everyone preparing the same amount. I'm cool with it.

Not so thrilled about the spell school thing on bards, mostly because of the lack of thematic spells.  Couldn't care less about it on the ranger.


DEFCON 1 said:


> Whether you have a hand-picked selection of spells available to you, or a list of spells from only certain schools, there's no real difference (except for those individuals who think "X class HAS to have spells A, B & C, otherwise THEY AREN'T TRULY THAT CLASS!).



Like, this is a major misrepresentation of what's going on with the bard.  Imagine if you took everything about exploring the wild from the ranger list. Or all healing magicks from the cleric.  

The iconic bard is a party buffer and enemy debuffer,  but they have only super limited BI as a tool to do it. That feeling of being unable to fulfill the class fantasy is striking


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Not at all. You could have a slot caster and a point caster in the same party without problems because both are built on the same underlying system.



The point has nothing to do with how easy or hard to understand and use spell slots or spell points are, or the math not matching up, or whatever you’re alluding to here. 

The point is that the game is better off with a player being able to pick up a Druid and know how Spellcasting works, and not have to learn a new way of doing spells on top of everything else that Is different about the Druid. 


Charlaquin said:


> Spell slots and levels matter just as much to 5e’s point-based casting the way it’s built.






Charlaquin said:


> I understand that point, and disagree with it. I would rather each class have its own mechanical identity.



Okay, several statements seemed to not be getting that this was my point, so…it didn’t seem like it. 
Also, what I’m saying isn’t contradictory to the goal of individual mechanical identity for each class, because even the wizard isn’t _just_ Spellcasting, and even choice of spells creates a different play experience. 


Charlaquin said:


> I mean, I think that’s a good alternative option to have in the DMG or something, as we do now.



Better in the PHB, so a player can just choose to deviate with an equally balanced casting system regardless of which class their playing.


----------



## Eric V (Oct 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It's to try and get people to lighten up.



Is it working?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The point has nothing to do with how easy or hard to understand and use spell slots or spell points are, or the math not matching up, or whatever you’re alluding to here.



I don’t know what you think I’m alluding to. It was not my intention to allude to anything. I said what I did because it was what I meant.


doctorbadwolf said:


> The point is that the game is better off with a player being able to pick up a Druid and know how Spellcasting works, and not have to learn a new way of doing spells on top of everything else that Is different about the Druid.



I disagree. I think the game would be better off with more variety in how characters of different classes play.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay, several statements seemed to not be getting that this was my point, so…it didn’t seem like it.



 we often seem to have this problem where you think I don’t understand you.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, what I’m saying isn’t contradictory to the goal of individual mechanical identity for each class, because even the wizard isn’t _just_ Spellcasting, and even choice of spells creates a different play experience.



Sure, but wizards are _mostly_ spellcasting, as are pretty much all full-casters. I don’t find the differences in how they play to be all that significant. Since their identities primarily revolve around casting spells, I think it would be better if they did that in significantly different ways. I’m big on ludonarrative harmony, and I think if there’s narratively a bunch of different kinds of spellcasters, the gameplay should feel like they’re doing different kinds of magic. I think the Warlock achieves that very well, as did the Next sorcerer. I don’t think the other 5e casters do, and I think what we’ve seen of 1D&D casters indicates a possibility that they will feel even less different in the revised rules, which is something I find undesirable.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Better in the PHB, so a player can just choose to deviate with an equally balanced casting system regardless of which class their playing.



Sure, I don’t particularly care which book such rules are housed in.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Mephista said:


> I mostly don't care about the spell preparation vs known, nor everyone preparing the same amount. I'm cool with it.
> 
> Not so thrilled about the spell school thing on bards, mostly because of the lack of thematic spells.  Couldn't care less about it on the ranger.
> 
> ...



I’m having trouble focusing on the task for long enough to finish. Which spells are the Bard losing? 

I think it probably would work better to let the bard select spells from any spell list but from limited schools, myself, if they are gonna go this way. 

I did see that Faerie Fire is not on the arcane list, and it’s an evocation, which means that….only Druids can cast it? That seems…bad.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t know what you think I’m alluding to. It was not my intention to allude to anything. I said what I did because it was what I meant.
> 
> I disagree. I think the game would be better off with more variety in how characters of different classes play.



You keep talking about more variety as if I’m arguing for less, when the opposite is true. We disagree on where that variety should live, or how it’s accessed. 


Charlaquin said:


> we often seem to have this problem where you think I don’t understand you.



You often seem to be replying to something completely different from what I’ve said, as is happening in this discussion. As if I were making a point wholly disconnected from the point I’m making. 
It’s hard to conclude that you understand what point I’m making when you reply to a statement about individualizing choice of Spellcasting type with a unified default as if I were talking about every character having exactly the same casting features. 


Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but wizards are _mostly_ spellcasting, as are pretty much all full-casters.



I disagree. I…view this statement as completely false. The wizard is the most defined by thier Spellcasting, to thier detriment, and every other full caster has either another very significant feature and a smattering of others, or just a variety of features. The cleric has nearly as much going on outside of spells as a half-caster, as does the Bard. The warlock is almost more invocations and boons and patron features than spells, and the sorcerer’s spell list is overshadowed IME by sorcery points and meta-magic, and then also has origin features. 


Charlaquin said:


> I don’t find the differences in how they play to be all that significant. Since their identities primarily revolve around casting spells, I think it would be better if they did that in significantly different ways.



I struggle to see how you can see the very different spells of the wizard and Druid as “not significantly different”, as someone who does see the different classes powers in 4e as significantly different. 


Charlaquin said:


> I’m big on ludonarrative harmony, and I think if there’s narratively a bunch of different kinds of spellcasters, the gameplay should feel like they’re doing different kinds of magic. I think the Warlock achieves that very well, as did the Next sorcerer. I don’t think the other 5e casters do, and I think what we’ve seen of 1D&D casters indicates a possibility that they will feel even less different in the revised rules, which is something I find undesirable.



and I think that very harmony is disrupted by each and every spellcaster having their own underlying system rather than only the spellcasters who are narratively “weird” having different systems.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m having trouble focusing on the task for long enough to finish. Which spells are the Bard losing?
> 
> I think it probably would work better to let the bard select spells from any spell list but from limited schools, myself, if they are gonna go this way.
> 
> I did see that Faerie Fire is not on the arcane list, and it’s an evocation, which means that….only Druids can cast it? That seems…bad.



One of these days I’m gonna have to sit down and make a spreadsheet of the spells the classes get in these UAs compared to their classic 5e spell lists, cause I’m in the same boat, not really clear on what they’re gaining or losing. I will say, this new method is going to make spell preparation _even more_ of a PITA because you don’t just have a handy dandy list of the spells your character can learn. If the revised PHB organizes spells alphabetically, it’s going to be an absolute nightmare to do without digital tools. Though it’s possible that’s a feature not a bug in WotC’s eyes.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> One of these days I’m gonna have to sit down and make a spreadsheet of the spells the classes get in these UAs compared to their classic 5e spell lists, cause I’m in the same boat, not really clear on what they’re gaining or losing. I will say, this new method is going to make spell preparation _even more_ of a PITA because you don’t just have a handy dandy list of the spells your character can learn. If the revised PHB organizes spells alphabetically, it’s going to be an absolute nightmare to do without digital tools. Though it’s possible that’s a feature not a bug in WotC’s eyes.



I’m 103% certain that wizards isn’t going to try to push people into digital tools like that. It would absolutely inevitably fail, and backfire. It’s just too easy to play D&D without wizard’s help.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m having trouble focusing on the task for long enough to finish. Which spells are the Bard losing?



Almost all buffs/debuffs. No heroism or bane


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Almost all buffs/debuffs. No heroism or bane



Terrible. Bane and heroism are…iconic.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You keep talking about more variety as if I’m arguing for less, when the opposite is true. We disagree on where that variety should live, or how it’s accessed.



I don’t think you’re arguing _for less variety_, I think you’re arguing _against_ different casting classes having different casting systems, and a desire for more variety is the reason I’m arguing _for_ that.


doctorbadwolf said:


> You often seem to be replying to something completely different from what I’ve said, as is happening in this discussion. As if I were making a point wholly disconnected from the point I’m making.
> It’s hard to conclude that you understand what point I’m making when you reply to a statement about individualizing choice of Spellcasting type with a unified default as if I were talking about every character having exactly the same casting features.



 I’m responding to the words you write, and when you try to clarify your meaning, you don’t seem to be giving me information I hadn’t already gleaned from those words.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I disagree. I…view this statement as completely false. The wizard is the most defined by thier Spellcasting, to thier detriment, and every other full caster has either another very significant feature and a smattering of others, or just a variety of features. The cleric has nearly as much going on outside of spells as a half-caster, as does the Bard. The warlock is almost more invocations and boons and patron features than spells, and the sorcerer’s spell list is overshadowed IME by sorcery points and meta-magic, and then also has origin features.



I find the majority of those features to have far less significant impact on gameplay than spellcasting does for _most_ full casters. The Warlock is of course the exception; it actually plays and feels meaningfully different from the other casters, and with various combinations of spell selection, patron, pact boon, and invocations, they can be made to play meaningfully differently even than other warlocks (though admittedly the sheer effectiveness of EB spam does make doing so less appealing from an optimization standpoint). It’s great and I want to see _more_ of that kind of diverse gameplay. In comparison, every other spellcaster feels cookie-cutter. Moon Druids do feel appreciably different too, because wild shape completely alters your character and their capabilities. But sorcery points and Metamagic overshadowing their spellcasting? Really? To me they feel like the seasoning, while spellcasting is the meal. They give sorcerers a dash of their own flavor, but fundamentally they still pretty much taste like wizards.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I struggle to see how you can see the very different spells of the wizard and Druid as “not significantly different”, as someone who does see the different classes powers in 4e as significantly different.



Their spells are different, but unlike 4e powers they don’t lead to significantly different gameplay. The options you weigh as a player, both round to round and level to level, are basically the same.


doctorbadwolf said:


> and I think that very harmony is disrupted by each and every spellcaster having their own underlying system rather than only the spellcasters who are narratively “weird” having different systems.



Well maybe this is part of the problem. I think every caster should be “narratively weird.” If they aren’t doing meaningfully different forms of magic, why are they different classes?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m 103% certain that wizards isn’t going to try to push people into digital tools like that. It would absolutely inevitably fail, and backfire. It’s just too easy to play D&D without wizard’s help.



You’re probably right, but the cynic in me isn’t totally convinced.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 8, 2022)

Eric V said:


> Is it working?



No idea!  But I do know the people I argue with seems to change every year, so something good must be happening.  Either I'm changing minds, or they are just no longer making posts that make me feel the need to dispute them.  So either way, I win!


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> You’re probably right, but the cynic in me isn’t totally convinced.



We are talking of the company that is selling a pack of random proxies for $250. Of course they'll try to push the online tools by design! It wouldn't be the first time even. The only difference is this time they aren't vaporware.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Almost all buffs/debuffs. No heroism or bane



I think that's probably a matter of moving those out of the base bard class & into archetypes where they fit the power budget. That has the nice secondary effect of freeing up useful amounts of power budget for bars archetypes to strongly lean into their own niche without being able to wear a mantle of "I'm totally just as good at magic as the Wizard" when that niche is not casting or its some other flavor of casting.
Bard archetypes that fit those things might be even better at using those spells.  That's going to be especially true if a lot of spells get dialed down & draw more from relevant archetypes.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think that's probably a matter of moving those out of the base bard class & into archetypes where they fit the power budget.



Maybe, but then why are they absent from Lore? That's the perfect place for them to appear.  

I'm not really married to where they appear, but their appearance somewhere needs to happen.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

Mephista said:


> Maybe, but then why are they absent from Lore? That's the perfect place for them to appear.
> 
> I'm not really married to where they appear, but their appearance somewhere needs to happen.



Lore is more generalist caster bard than specialized niche caster.  It also has two sets of magical secrets to draw upon if they want the arcane spells not under divination enchantment illusion or transmutation enough to eat some opportunity cost on them.

I think that bard also has too much of its power budget sunk into the combo of magical secrets & inspiration to really justify all of those spells in the base class without using either of those.  The mage group can't exactly excel as mages if the full weight of their own spell list is too easily wielded by expert classes who themselves are carrying a bunch of expert class features on top of that weight either.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 9, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Well maybe this is part of the problem. I think every caster should be “narratively weird.” If they aren’t doing meaningfully different forms of magic, why are they different classes?



Certainly. To me, there should be some elements of magic that are the same regardless of what magic you do, but also where I’d want to deviate further would be to have more exclusive spells, more genuine variety in spell effects, and to maybe let the sorcerer do something very different instead of even using spells at all.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 9, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Certainly. To me, there should be some elements of magic that are the same regardless of what magic you do,



Certain elements, sure. I keep pointing to the warlock and the Next sorcerer, both of which operate under the same fundamental spellcasting system - they cast spells from the same superset as everyone else, which follow all the same rules governing spells. It’s only how they access and cast them that changes.


doctorbadwolf said:


> but also where I’d want to deviate further would be to have more exclusive spells, more genuine variety in spell effects, and to maybe let the sorcerer do something very different instead of even using spells at all.



Yeah, I’m up for that too.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 9, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> One of these days I’m gonna have to sit down and make a spreadsheet of the spells the classes get in these UAs compared to their classic 5e spell lists, cause I’m in the same boat, not really clear on what they’re gaining or losing. I will say, this new method is going to make spell preparation _even more_ of a PITA because you don’t just have a handy dandy list of the spells your character can learn. If the revised PHB organizes spells alphabetically, it’s going to be an absolute nightmare to do without digital tools. Though it’s possible that’s a feature not a bug in WotC’s eyes.



Oooooooo, a return to my Access database of spells for 2e, and 3e!  Sweet (/sarcasm/laughter)


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 9, 2022)

I don't want every caster to have every spell available at all times. I actually don't think arcane casters should learn any new spells automatically. They should have to go out and buy/discover/create them. Not just go up a level and all of a sudden know 20-30 new spells.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 9, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Certain elements, sure. I keep pointing to the warlock and the Next sorcerer, both of which operate under the same fundamental spellcasting system - they cast spells from the same superset as everyone else, which follow all the same rules governing spells. It’s only how they access and cast them that changes.



Ah, see, I would consider the access methodology the “how Spellcasting works” part, and spells are the thing being accessed by that system. So, siloing spell selection has a bigger impact on what a class feels like than the access methodology, to me. 


Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I’m up for that too.



Imagine if we had that for sorcerers and the recharge when XYZ happens dynamic for the warlock. I’d also be cool with warlocks leaning even harder into at-will abilities and passive effects. 

Those are kinda the only casters I’d want to access magic super differently, though. I want the bard to get less Spellcasting and more inspiration stuff, but I’d still want them to prepare spells and cast them with spell slots.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 9, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> One of these days I’m gonna have to sit down and make a spreadsheet of the spells the classes get in these UAs compared to their classic 5e spell lists, cause I’m in the same boat, not really clear on what they’re gaining or losing. I will say, this new method is going to make spell preparation _even more_ of a PITA because you don’t just have a handy dandy list of the spells your character can learn. If the revised PHB organizes spells alphabetically, it’s going to be an absolute nightmare to do without digital tools. Though it’s possible that’s a feature not a bug in WotC’s eyes.



Coming back to this, I think this is the only big pitfall I can see that might sink the new spell system. 

I’d almost rather see more focused and narrow class spell lists.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 9, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> I don't want every caster to have every spell available at all times. I actually don't think arcane casters should learn any new spells automatically. They should have to go out and buy/discover/create them. Not just go up a level and all of a sudden know 20-30 new spells.



Expanding spellbook casting to all arcanes is an idea.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 9, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Expanding spellbook casting to all arcanes is an idea.



Would the Sorceror even really exist at this point, with all of his original concept gone or stolen? The Ship of Theseus would like to know.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 9, 2022)

Branduil said:


> Would the Sorceror even really exist at this point, with all of his original concept gone or stolen? The Ship of Theseus would like to know.



Sure. Things changing doesn’t make them not the thing. 

In this particular case, I’d be fine with limiting Sorcerer spell choice if it came with greatly expanded meta-magic and more sorcery points.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 9, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure. Things changing doesn’t make them not the thing.
> 
> In this particular case, I’d be fine with limiting Sorcerer spell choice if it came with greatly expanded meta-magic and more sorcery points.



Well I was mostly commenting on the idea of Sorcerers needing spellbooks, thus destroying their lore reasons for existing.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 9, 2022)

I don't like it.

It's good in theory, and many will like that.

Simple, clean, universal. Less stuff to learn as all classes use the same thing. Like Extra attack feature for many classes.

But, I'm afraid that it will make casters even more powerful.

If they want standardization then maybe all casters should be spell known casters:


1. Spells know; one spell known per caster level from levels 1 to 11. then extra spell known at levels 13,15 and 17.

2. 2 extra cantrips known and 2 extra spell known from spell levels 1 to 5 depending on class/subclass.

3. Ritual caster feat. Wizards get this feat for free at 1st level. WITHOUT the ASI.

4. All spells available to all classes.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 9, 2022)

Branduil said:


> Well I was mostly commenting on the idea of Sorcerers needing spellbooks, thus destroying their lore reasons for existing.



They could be an exception to needing any sort of physical spell record.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Lore is more generalist caster bard than specialized niche caster.  It also has two sets of magical secrets to draw upon if they want the arcane spells not under divination enchantment illusion or transmutation enough to eat some opportunity cost on them.



...  You are saying the generalist bard caster shouldn't have access to the iconic bard spells that help fulfill the base class fantasy.  Right then. What's next, no healing spells on the life cleric? They can just use channel divinity instead.

Bah. Magical Secrets are pointless as a balancing feature.  Only like, what was it, 5 or so percent of games make it past level 10? This is like, end of the game, if you're lucky, so you've pretty much settled your party fighting style and tactics and gotten all your feats and magic items. And you'll never make it to the second Magic Secrets unless your DM is specifically running the rare starting at high level game. This does jack and @#$% for actual levels the vast majority of people play at.



tetrasodium said:


> I think that bard also has too much of its power budget sunk into the combo of magical secrets & inspiration to really justify all of those spells in the base class without using either of those.  The mage group can't exactly excel as mages if the full weight of their own spell list is too easily wielded by expert classes who themselves are carrying a bunch of expert class features on top of that weight either.



So, you care more about a different class entirely, ones we haven't even seen, than the bard being able to fulfill its class fantasy at playable levels.  That's the impression I'm getting here.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

Mephista said:


> ...  You are saying the generalist bard caster shouldn't have access to the iconic bard spells that help fulfill the base class fantasy.  Right then. What's next, no healing spells on the life cleric? They can just use channel divinity instead.
> 
> Bah. Magical Secrets are pointless as a balancing feature.  Only like, what was it, 5 or so percent of games make it past level 10? This is like, end of the game, if you're lucky, so you've pretty much settled your party fighting style and tactics and gotten all your feats and magic items. And you'll never make it to the second Magic Secrets unless your DM is specifically running the rare starting at high level game. This does jack and @#$% for actual levels the vast majority of people play at.
> 
> ...



Those spells were "iconic" when bard was a half caster.  They are no longer half casters though and gained a bunch of nondoell abilities  that no longer leave them  don't room for all of the spells they  are now gaining twice as fast with full csstervprogression as when those spells were "iconic".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Those spells were "iconic" when bard was a half caster.  They are no longer half casters though and gained a bunch of nondoell abilities  that no longer leave them  don't room for all of the spells they  are now gaining twice as fast with full csstervprogression as when those spells were "iconic".




I do miss an earlier magocal secrets... but otger than that, I think the 4 schools of magic are pretty iconic.
I think some of the druid spells were a nice addition in 5e though. I think there should be an easier way to get them back.
(Other than using magic initiate).


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 9, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I do miss an earlier magocal secrets... but otger than that, I think the 4 schools of magic are pretty iconic.
> I think some of the druid spells were a nice addition in 5e though. I think tgere should be an easier way to get them back.
> (Other than using magic initiate).



I missed this point...bards dont have access to druid spells?

What will my Faux Celtic bards do then?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2022)

SkidAce said:


> I missed this point...bards dont have access to druid spells?
> 
> What will my Faux Celtic bards do then?




Take druid or ranger instead?

I hope for a feature like songs of restauration that gives limited druid spells.
But I guess we could easily take magic initiate primal and later ritual caster with 2 primal spells and an apropriate subclass. Not great, but not bad either.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I do miss an earlier magocal secrets... but otger than that, I think the 4 schools of magic are pretty iconic.
> I think some of the druid spells were a nice addition in 5e though*. I think tgere should be an easier way to get them back.*
> (Other than using magic initiate).



The bard we have gets a bardic inspiration feature at 1 3 6 10 7 14 & 18.  I could see a bard archetype focused on a theme that fits some flavor of the missing  abjuration/conjurartion/necromancy/evocation spells giving features  at one or more of those _seven_ levels that allow using bardic inspiration to cast the relevant spell(s) or generating similar results in a bardy way using something like bardic inspiration.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The bard we have gets a bardic inspiration feature at 1 3 6 10 7 14 & 18.  I could see a bard archetype focused on a theme that fits some flavor of the missing  abjuration/conjurartion/necromancy/evocation spells giving features  at one or more of those _seven_ levels that allow using bardic inspiration to cast the relevant spell(s) or generating similar results in a bardy way using something like bardic inspiration.



You still haven't told us how is it a good thing restricting to a single subclass something that thematically all bards should be able to do?


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> You still haven't told us how is it a good thing restricting to a single subclass something that thematically all bards should be able to do?



You are inserting "good thing" in place of "a thing that fits within the power budget of a class".  I don't believe that the base bard class has   room for all of the spells being thrown around as "iconic" _and_ all of the stuff it already gets from base+archetype _and_ be a full caster.  A particular archetype is something I could see substituting some of the factotumish lore master stuff & heavy bardic inspiration options for those spells or similar effects.

"But it's iconic" is avoiding the fact that it's "iconic" & "bards should be able to" from when bards were not full casters like they are now.  Why are we calling to history only for power& ignoring the thorny parts of that history?


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You are inserting "good thing" in place of "a thing that fits within the power budget of a class".  I don't believe that the base bard class has   room for all of the spells being thrown around as "iconic" _and_ all of the stuff it already gets from base+archetype _and_ be a full caster.  A particular archetype is something I could see substituting some of the factotumish lore master stuff & heavy bardic inspiration options for those spells or similar effects.
> 
> "But it's iconic" is avoiding the fact that it's "iconic" & "bards should be able to" from when bards were not full casters like they are now.  Why are we calling to history only for power& ignoring the thorny parts of that history?




Increasing a class's number of available spell options does, in principle, make it stronger. But so long as the class already has difficult trade-offs about what spells to prepare or cast, the difference is pretty small (unless the added spells are intrinsically stronger, but that would be separate balance issue). Spell list restrictions are far more about theme and niche-protection than about balance, and inspiration is central to the 5e Bard's default theme and niche. So even if something does need to be cut for power budget purposes, the spells that reinforce that theme should be pretty far down the list.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> Increasing a class's number of available spell options does, in principle, make it stronger. But so long as the class already has difficult trade-offs about what spells to prepare or cast, the difference is pretty small (unless the added spells are intrinsically stronger, but that would be separate balance issue). *Spell list restrictions are far more about theme and niche-protection than about balanc*e, and inspiration is central to the 5e Bard's default theme and niche. So even if something does need to be cut for power budget purposes, the spells that reinforce that theme should be pretty far down the list.



I don't disagree, but also the bard's niche is not "I'm totally a full on wizard when it's useful".  Back in the past being half caster kept the bard from shoving the wizard aside from the wizard's own niche but bounded accuracy skill changes & making them a full caster allows them to do that. Why is it a problem for bard to find their own niche in generating these effects if they need them instead of using the wizard's niche for them?

With regards to the "difficult tradeoffs", the flex-vancian  prep changes the opportunity cost to prepare _a_ spell compared to  both 3.x as well as 5e.  Now it only competes with spells of that level but unlike in the past it can be used for anywhere between zero and all of that level's slots.  I like the new prep style but lets not pretend it has no impact.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I don't disagree, but also the bard's niche is not "I'm totally a full on wizard when it's useful".  Back in the past being half caster kept the bard from shoving the wizard aside from the wizard's own niche but bounded accuracy skill changes & making them a full caster allows them to do that. Why is it a problem for bard to find their own niche in generating these effects if they need them instead of using the wizard's niche for them?




Back in the past (2e) my bard was behind the full wizard in casting for exactly half a level... then the bard was level 3 as the wizard was just level 2. They had a bit harder time finding spells and having high int on top of charisma etc, but they were level 7 when the wizard just hit 5.
Then the bard had much more hp and all spells were cast at higher level. 7d6 fireball was better than 5d6 fireball. Chromatic Orb was way more usefull for the bard as was magic missile...

So no. The bard was not a 2/3 caster in 2e. Rather 90% caster. And they could keep up quite well with non specialist magic users. And their chance of survival up to level 7 was also way higher.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Back in the past (2e) my bard was behind the full wizard in casting for exactly half a level... then the bard was level 3 as the wizard was just level 2. They had a bit harder time finding spells and having high int on top of charisma etc, but they were level *7* when the wizard just hit *5*.
> Then the bard had much more hp and all spells were cast at higher level. 7d6 fireball was better than 5d6 fireball. Chromatic Orb was way more usefull for the bard as was magic missile...
> 
> So no. The bard was not a 2/3 caster in 2e. Rather 90% caster. And they could keep up quite well with non specialist magic users. And their chance of survival up to level 7 was also way higher.



You are oversimplifying things & skipping over how different 2e was in ways that really matter in this case.


Spoiler: 2e bardstuff















Spoiler: 2e wizard stuff












2e bard had the thief/rogue exp progression as opposed to the wizard's wizard progression & both of them gained experience for different things.Bard also had a requirement of dex 12 int 13 cha 15 at the time when pointbuy was not the norm (or even in the phb from looking at pg 18/19).

I believe that the only spell mentioned by name as a thing bards must have without cost is heroes feast.  As now heroes feast was a level 6 spell but bards got their first level 6 slot at level 16 not level 9 as now. Wizards by comparison got their first level 6 slot at level 12.  Even comparing the available spell slots each class had at 16 & 12 was different with wizard having 4/4/4/4/4/1 to the bard's 4/3/3/3/2/1.  The wizard reached level 12  to get that 6th level slot at 750,000xp while the bard was midway between 13(_660,000xp_) & 14 (_880,000xp_).  The bard gets level 16 at 1,320,000 which would put the wizard somewhere between 13(_1,125,000xp_) & 14(_1,500,000xp_).

I'm not sure why levels 7 & 5 are of note & might have missed something that makes them relevant but a level 7 bard has minimum 40,000xp & the following spell slots 3/2/1 while a level 5 wizard minimum 20,000xp & has 4/2/1 spell slots.  at the same 40,000xp a wizard would be level 6 & has 4/2/2 spell slots.  *Why is the bard7 wizard5 lineup here?



Comparisons to 2e are difficult to make because there were so many variables, but the wizard had been casting 6th level spells for a good 4 of the bard's levels before the bard even gets their first first level slot despite their accelerated progression.  Saying 2/3 caster is close enough even then*


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You are oversimplifying things & skipping over how different 2e was in ways that really matter in this case.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 2e bardstuff
> ...




Level 7 and level 5 were important, because this were fireball levels. And I mentioned the harder stat requirements.
And yes, I was simplifying things, but since the bard got extra XP for gold, usually the bard was ahead xp wise.
But as you see in your table, the bard was usually at least a bit ahead in levels and so it usually amounted to more than 2/3 caster. 90% was proabably a bit exaggerated, but the bard kept up quite well. Maybe I had the level 7, level 5 i my head, because most wizards we had were multiclass fighter/wizards, because wizards without multiclass rarely made it to level 5...

Edit: having studied the xp tables, the bard usually is only 1 spell level behind, not accounting for the more easily gained xp. So when the wizards learns 6th level spells, the bard can cast level 5 spells. So I think 80% caster is close enough...
and the bard gets to 3rd level spells before the wizard reaches 4th level spells. And the bard casts them with greater potency (because many stats depend on the caster level!), so maybe we are back up to 90%.

Edit 2: and then there was the sage bard kit, who could cast spells as a bard one level higher... fun times for being a bard...


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 9, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Level 7 and level 5 were important, because this were fireball levels. And I mentioned the harder stat requirements.
> And yes, I was simplifying things, but since the bard got extra XP for gold, usually the bard was ahead xp wise.
> But as you see in your table, the bard was usually at least a bit ahead in levels and so it usually amounted to more than 2/3 caster. 90% was proabably a bit exaggerated, but the bard kept up quite well. Maybe I had the level 7, level 5 i my head, because most wizards we had were multiclass fighter/wizards, because wizards without multiclass rarely made it to level 5...



Sure but 7 bard was *4*0,000xp & 5 wizard was *2*0,000xp.  The bard did indeed get exp for gold under an optional rule, but the wizard was not omitted from that rule


Spoiler: 2e dmg pg70


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Sure but 7 bard was *4*0,000xp & 5 wizard was *2*0,000xp.  The bard did indeed get exp for gold under an optional rule, but the wizard was not omitted from that rule
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 2e dmg pg70
> ...




But level 6 wizard at 40k XP still cast level 3 spells top.
And at least in our campaigns, xp from gold outpaced xp from spells by a lot.
And we actually used the optional optional rule for bards that gave about half XP from rogue, wizard and fighter tables.

edit: and I really have to tip you with XP for research!


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You are inserting "good thing" in place of "a thing that fits within the power budget of a class".  I don't believe that the base bard class has   room for all of the spells being thrown around as "iconic" _and_ all of the stuff it already gets from base+archetype _and_ be a full caster.  A particular archetype is something I could see substituting some of the factotumish lore master stuff & heavy bardic inspiration options for those spells or similar effects.
> 
> "But it's iconic" is avoiding the fact that it's "iconic" & "bards should be able to" from when bards were not full casters like they are now.  Why are we calling to history only for power& ignoring the thorny parts of that history?



I asked if you thought something was a good thing or the desirable outcome. 

I partly buy your argument: There is not enough power budget to have both prepared fullcasting and have the bard do iconic bard things. Why do you want the bard to remain unable to do the iconic bardic thing instead of, say turn it back into a known caster so it can do iconic bardic things again? (Or whatever dialing back you think they have to do in order to allow for it). Why would you rather double down on the path that guts the essence of the class? (And I would think that you would appreciate keeping the wizard special in mechanics?)


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 10, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> I asked if you thought something was a good thing or the desirable outcome.



Without seeing an example of such a subclass where it might be thematically appropriate & within the power budget  it's difficult to say if it's good or desirable in that case. Bards in playtest packet2 are _not_ unable to cast those spells though.  At both 11 & 15 bards can choose a spell list they can prepare any two spells from & change the spells they prepare from it whenever they prepare spells. Let's not pretend not to notice the elephant that goes wit not using that class resource for these spells.  Freeing those two spells up is more about being able to cast tiny hut & fireball (or whatever).  

It doesn't look like magical secrets was a thing until 5e so if we are talking about "iconic" bard stuff it's hard to see why the bard shouldn't be using that for old missing spells instead of picking up tiny hut & fireball or whatever on top of the _new_ spells they can now cast.



MoonSong said:


> I partly buy your argument: There is not enough power budget to have both prepared fullcasting and have the bard do iconic bard things. Why do you want the bard to remain unable to do the iconic bardic thing instead of, say turn it back into a known caster so it can do iconic bardic things again? (Or whatever dialing back you think they have to do in order to allow for it). Why would you rather double down on the path that guts the essence of the class? (And I would think that you would appreciate keeping the wizard special in mechanics?)



Looking back you mentioned heroism(both 3.x & 5e bard/wiz both cast it at character level 5)/bane(not _seeing_ in 2ephb) but I've always seen it as a cleric spell, I'm not sure I'd call either of those "iconic bard spells" just because they were capable of casting them.  Heroism was single target so  IME any situation where it would be important (ie fear aura type stuff) probably fell to the wizard's stack of scribed scrolls able to cover the party rather than the bard's limited spell slots

The only other spell I remember seeing named by people as  important to bards was heroes feast & that was not a spell bards could cast until 16th w/1.32mil exp*(2e)  to the wizard's 12(750k exp*) in 2e & 11wiz/bard17 in 3.x.  At least in 2014 5e for both wizard & bard . I just don't consider a spell wizards had been casting for so long before bards were capable of casting it to be an "iconic bard spell" that would be part of the class's "essence".  Bard hasn't _lost_ any of those spells though, they just compete with fireball &  tiny hut or whatever the new big ones are in a new very much not iconic bard feature(magical secrets).

Nobody is complaining about the new spells on the list that bards are able to cast even though they never  could before, just lot  about couple mostly unnamed ones that are missing if the bard doesn't use their new magical secrets options for them.

I quite like the flex-vancian prep on the bard & wouldn't want to see it go back to spells known.  _If_ Heroism & Bane are the only spells we are talking about I'd toss them in as an option for bardic inspiration dice spending.


*2e levels  & experience were funny & hard to compare for lots of reasons, there was some discussion & charts on that a few posts back


----------



## Mephista (Oct 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Nobody is complaining about the new spells on the list that bards are able to cast even though they never could before, just lot about couple mostly unnamed ones that are missing if the bard doesn't use their new magical secrets options for them.



Oh, plenty of people are. They're often unthematic and don't fit the bard's playstyle. Plenty of people would be happy to swap the crappy new spells for the old one. There's even a thread here, and in every place I know, about wanting a forth spell list for bard.

 But expecting people to complain about extra spells that you can just ignore? Like... just don't take it? No one is holding a gun to the bard player's head and making them take the spells. Not a lot of point.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Nobody is complaining about the new spells on the list that bards are able to cast even though they never could before, just lot about couple mostly unnamed ones that are missing if the bard doesn't use their new magical secrets options for them.



What!? Nobody is complaining? I complained about them getting Hex. In _your_ thread. To _you_.

Alas, for today I've learned I am nobody.


----------



## Lycurgon (Oct 13, 2022)

I hate the standardisation of spell lists. I really like Warlocks and part of that is their unique spells. Hex and Armor of Agathys and such. Yes there are some subclasses that get some of them, and ways to get some of them with feats, but they remain rare outside of Warlocks. Now Bards can hex. 
I don't like Clerics getting all the Paladin Smite spells, I don't like Paladins getting Spirit Guardians. 
I don't like bards missing classic Bard spells. 
I like that paladins and Rangers having unique spells and think their should be more of them (although most of the Ranger ones are not very good but that is another issue). 
Standardising the list makes for less interesting classes rather than more fun and different experiences from each class. 

But I do like that Ranger's became a prepared class rather than spells known. I don't understand why rangers were designed this way in the first place when Paladins are prepared casters. Rangers are not as powerful as Paladins and shouldn't be more limited in their spell choices. Many of the spells on the Druid/Ranger list are useful but rather situational, being focused on being in nature. It would help to be able to change them when you are in a city or dungeon or travelling in natural surroundings. Having played a Ranger recently I found it difficult to choose useful spells from their list. There are some obvious choices but after those it is not a great list. Being able to change things up would make it better although it needs more help than just that. 

I think it is okay for Bards being changed from known to prepared although I don't think it is required, I don't really care either way for Bards, but they do need their own unique list. 

I don't think it is good to make all classes the same in regards to preparing spells. I like there being differences in how you deal with spells. A difference between playing a Cleric vs a Sorcerer vs a Wizard.

Having an optional rule in the DMG for making all classes into Prepared Clasters would be a good idea. But don't homogenise all the class. It doesn't make everything interesting and more fun.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 13, 2022)

Lycurgon said:


> I hate the standardisation of spell lists. I really like Warlocks and part of that is their unique spells. Hex and Armor of Agathys and such. Yes there are some subclasses that get some of them, and ways to get some of them with feats, but they remain rare outside of Warlocks. Now Bards can hex.
> I don't like Clerics getting all the Paladin Smite spells, I don't like Paladins getting Spirit Guardians.
> I don't like bards missing classic Bard spells.
> I like that paladins and Rangers having unique spells and think their should be more of them (although most of the Ranger ones are not very good but that is another issue).
> ...



I think that the standardisation of spell list is a "put it out there and see who barks" kind of a thing. It may become official or it may not. We will not know until much later.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 13, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think that the standardisation of spell list is a "put it out there and see who barks" kind of a thing. It may become official or it may not. We will not know until much later.



If it was just the spell list I'd agree but with weapons also losing their class specific lists to class specific simple/martial #one handed martial finesse I think there may be more to it.  Deliberator not this allows something like the soelljammwe box set & similar for other settings to include a player book with spells & weapons tuned to fit the themes and baseline power levels of a setting in addition to just drop in weapon & armor lists for different power & magic item availability. A lot of 5e's problems could have been handled long ago with that kind of swap ability.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 13, 2022)

I love the 3 spells lists, but it creates some weirdness.

Bards not having access to Power Word: Heal is pretty is a big no-no from me (yes, I know, Magical Secrets are a thing...but still...it was one of the few bard-only high level spell)

The new spell prep itself is quite streamlined and I think I'd favor it over the regular spell prep/spell know of the PHB for my casual players. But I think each class having its own spell list OR having 3 spell lists with a lot more exceptions would be best.

Or they could go the ''warlock's way'' and add a extra bonus spell list that you can choose to pick from (not always prepared).

1: Healing Word, Heroism
2: Aid, Lesser Restoration
3: Aura of Vitality, Mass Healing Word
4: Aura of Life, Freedom of Movement
5: Circle of Power, Greater Restoration
6: Heroes' Feast (Word of Recall?)
7: Regenerate
8: Anti-Magic Field
9: Power Word: Heal

Anyway, Words of Power and Aura spells should be usable by bards.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 13, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> If it was just the spell list I'd agree but with weapons also losing their class specific lists to class specific simple/martial #one handed martial finesse I think there may be more to it.  Deliberator not this allows something like the soelljammwe box set & similar for other settings to include a player book with spells & weapons tuned to fit the themes and baseline power levels of a setting in addition to just drop in weapon & armor lists for different power & magic item availability. A lot of 5e's problems could have been handled long ago with that kind of swap ability.



Maybe, but they are standardising to a baseline. I think it is too early a to see quite where this is going.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Oct 15, 2022)

We'll have a better idea when they release a full spellcaster and how they obtain / use spells.*

* No, the bard isn't a "full spellcaster". It's a frankenstinian amalgamation that's been inconsistent across editions. Hrumph.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 16, 2022)

Bard's been good and stable for two editions now. This is a destabilization of that and doesn't bode well for the traditional full casters.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I love the 3 spells lists, but it creates some weirdness.
> 
> Bards not having access to Power Word: Heal is pretty is a big no-no from me (yes, I know, Magical Secrets are a thing...but still...it was one of the few bard-only high level spell)
> 
> ...



I'd really like the current playtest set up with the spells prepared returned to the current rules "you can prepare this number of spells, chosen from spells you have access to", and then also add a Classic Spells list that is a list of spells you can prepare regardless of their school or what list they're on, and then ditch Songs of Restoration. 

Well, rewrite the Bard completely to rely less on spells and more on features like Song of Rest, but...


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 16, 2022)

There is good standardisation, to reduce _ inequalities_, and there is bad standardisation which reduces _ diversity_.

In this case I am afraid the main effect is the latter.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> This is a destabilization of that and doesn't bode well for the traditional full casters.



Doesn't it? In what sense?

The most likely result that I can see is trad full casters get buffed, especially Wizards.

Druids - Primal list effectively means they're a class with their own spell list still.
Clerics - Divine list seems also like it means Clerics still get their own spell list, essentially.
Wizards - The Arcane list seems to be the Wizard list (if I'm wrong, interested to hear it!)

So that's the three most-trad full casters. Druids I expect will get a number of small tweaks that overall improve them. Clerics and Wizards I expect will be moved to a smaller number of more serious subclasses. Wizards I also expect to see gain a spellbook-related ability to cast spells they didn't strictly prepare.

Sorcerers - The Arcane list is broader than their previous list, and preparation is a big change for them that eliminates their dumb raison d'etre from 3E/5E, so I expect they'll move to be more focused on being the "untrained caster" and "metamagic caster", and overall will likely gain in power.

Them + Bards is all the full casters.


----------

