# Arcane/Divine/Primal Spell Lists: Are the Benefits Real?



## Amrûnril (Oct 18, 2022)

The One D&D playtest puts forward shared Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists as replacements for unique class-based lists. I think this is a change with significant costs. Unique spell lists are arguably the biggest factor distinguishing spellcasting classes from one another, so removing them from all but three classes* will make the remaining classes less distinctive and their spell options less flavorful. Given these costs, it’s important to consider whether the benefits of the change are worth it. Yet the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that none of the purported benefits of shared spell lists hold up to serious scrutiny.


The main arguments in favor of shared spell lists seem to revolve around future-proofing, or forwards compatibility. But I don’t think shared spell list actually an improvement in this regard. Xanathar’s and Tasha’s have added both new spells and a new spellcasting class without unique spell lists being an issue. While looking through multiple indices for spells is a pain, this is a consequence of having spells in multiple sourcebooks, not of having them on lists labeled as “Cleric” and “Wizard” instead of “Divine” and “Arcane”. And checking a spell list labeled “Bard” is actually easier than opening the “Arcane” list and having to check the school notation next to each spell**.

As for feats, subclasses, magic items and the like, an ability that references the Arcane spell list is no more future-proofed than one that references the Wizard spell list. In either case future spells will be added or not added to the relevant list as flavor and balance dictate, and the ability’s reference to that list will remain valid. In the rare cases where a reference to a new class’s list would be appropriate (the developers’ preferred example is the Magic Initiate feat), a new version of the ability in question may actually have its own benefits: the Artificer Initiate feat’s substitution of tool proficiency for one of the cantrips make it better at capturing the flavor of a character dabbling in Artificer magic than an updated Magic Initiate feat would have been. And of course, writing the original ability with an open-ended list of class options would also have been a possibility.

It’s hard to see the new system as being more elegant either, given the ad-hoc adjustments needed to return the Bard to some semblance of its former function. There may be a flavor benefit in some settings, but since some spells are on multiple lists, it seems like it would make more sense to attach that flavor to the caster than to the spell. I suppose the reduced number of spell lists would save 3 or 4 pages in the PHB, but I really can't see a benefit beyond that.


***Whatever the changes in nomenclature, the Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists are still fundamentally class-based lists, built around the types of spells Wizards, Clerics and Druids have traditionally been able to use in D&D.
****It also seems odd for the developers to focus on this sort of concern given their emphasis elsewhere on digital tools which, if well constructed, should be able to seamlessly blend spells and spell lists from multiple sourcebooks. And even for analog players, it shouldn't be difficult to provide merged spell lists as printable documents.


----------



## niklinna (Oct 18, 2022)

I agree with you 100%. But I would like to point out that Pathfinder 2 did spell lists abstracted—slightly—from classes, and it worked out pretty well. Of course they have four lists, and certain subclasses get to choose which list they use, which opens up fun, flavorful, and thematic combinations.

I'll add that the current "you get this list but only a subset of the schools" is more confusing and complicated than either a class-specific list or a generic list. Unless they provide the actual lists you get access to—_which boils down to being a class-specific list_—you're going to have to do some fishing.



Amrûnril said:


> **It also seems odd for the developers to focus on this sort of concern given their emphasis elsewhere on digital tools which, *if well constructed*, should be able to seamlessly blend spells and spell lists from multiple sourcebooks. And even for analog players, it shouldn't be difficult to provide merged spell lists as printable documents.



The last time I saw any well-constructed software was over a decade ago.  (Was half-tempted to put a sob emoji there but I'm trying to keep my mood up.)


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 18, 2022)

I think it's an improvement, much easier to say X spell is an arcane spell rather than adding it to wizard, sorcerer, artificer and wondering if it should also be a warlock spell. Having three spell lists is much better than the 8 spell lists we have now.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I think it's an improvement, much easier to say X spell is an arcane spell rather than adding it to wizard, sorcerer, artificer and wondering if it should also be a warlock spell. Having three spell lists is much better than the 8 spell lists we have now.



One of the problems with these Source Lists is, a spell can be Arcane AND Divination AND Primal simultaneously, making the lists and the spell description an ambiguous unclear mess.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

Tweaking the Spell Schools to be more thematic is a better solution. Updated School lists give more resolution to distinguish between classes, and also allow future features to come with a School tag in order to apply to several classes that are known for this School.

*Conjuration:* telekinesis, force constructs, magical energy
*Divination:* scrying, fate, teleportation, planar effects
*Evocation:* elemental effects, earth, water, air, and fire
*Enchantment:* mind effects
*Illusion:* reality alteration
*Necromancy:* planar darkside, Undead, Fiend, Aberration
*Transmutation:* life, lifeform, body, shapeshifting, healing, plant and animal

While subclasses might do differently, the base classes generally feel like:
*Wizard* = Conjuration, Evocation, Illusion
*Bard* = Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, Transmutation
*Druid* = Divination, Evocation, Transmutation
*Cleric* = Divination, Necromancy, Transmutation
*Warlock* = Conjuration, Divination, Illusion, Necromancy
*Sorcerer* = Evocation, Necromancy, Transmutation
*Psion* = Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Transmutation

The classes can refer to the discrete and flavorful School lists.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 18, 2022)

Psionics could potentially be a problem for their Futureproofing too. Unless they either start have a 4th source list, or basically say "Psions based on Discipline use select schools from certain source lists"


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 18, 2022)

They just need to start with more than 3 spell lists. Forcing al 10l casters into 3 lists is the problem.

Do 5.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> They just need to start with more than 3 spell lists. Forcing al 10l casters into 3 lists is the problem.
> 
> Do 5.



Or 7.


----------



## Undrave (Oct 18, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I'll add that the current "you get this list but only a subset of the schools" is more confusing and complicated than either a class-specific list or a generic list. Unless they provide the actual lists you get access to—_which boils down to being a class-specific list_—you're going to have to do some fishing.



And Spell School are a mess.


----------



## niklinna (Oct 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Or 7.



Or 1! But we must preserve our silos, yes we must.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Or 7.



5 is better for a start and they can add more.

5 is also how MTG does it and they are under the same roof.

With 5, they can easily future proof it by adding new lists if they include the new lists and classes that use them in the same books.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 18, 2022)

Yes the benefits are real & two fold even beyond the ability to have setting/theme specific drop in replacements.


Full casters who are masters of their particular power source at the cost of not getting a bunch of notable class features like the close runnerup who only gets all the top shelf spells & most of the rest actually get to feel like being a master of it is a meaningful thing
Classes that are competent niche casters with a bunch of class abilities get to have more meaningful abilities for their niche while anything they take to expand that niche to be wider or deeper (ie race/feat/mc/magic item/etc) actually feel s special rather than an extra free csast of X spell  or whatever
I did some test games with L6-L7 characters & the drow/infernal tiefling bard/ranger both noted how it felt cool that their race really made them play different because of the spells those races added.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 18, 2022)

Identify all of the spells which the new system allows Class X to take. Put them together in a list. Repeat for all classes. Boom, you have just replicated the functionality of the new system using the old. There is _literally nothing_ that the new system does which cannot be done by the old system.

The reverse, however, is not true; there are many things the old system could do which the new system can't, which is why they had to kludge in healing magic for bards via class feature.

So the only question is whether the new system offers some kind of operational benefit, such as being easier to use (it isn't), or "future-proofing" (an argument which OP solidly demolishes and I have nothing to add).


----------



## shadowoflameth (Oct 18, 2022)

Personally, I think three is fine. That said, IMHO we also need class spell lists. No one wants to sort through in character creation going by the individual school. Especially players using the physical books. Books that WotC is still going to want to sell. Make Arcane, Divine and Primal a Tag, example; Magic Missile, 1st level Evocation, Vocal, Somatic, Arcane. If every caster got the whole Arcane list or in the case of the Bard, the chance to cherry pick every list and change what they pick, it takes space to shine away from other classes, and if everyone knows every spell, what is the benefit of being the Wizard? Up to now, the ability to learn new spells outside of level ups. And if every enemy is potentially the Ranger's favored enemy, then why wouldn't anyone who wants to fight against a backstory enemy choose Ranger or a 1 level dip?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Oct 18, 2022)

If they do keep this spell list system, and bar certain classes from certain schools, I hope they make the lists more user friendly by parsing out the spells by school at each level. I'd make it a lot easier to know which spells to notice and which to ignore.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> One of the problems with these Source Lists is, a spell can be Arcane AND Divination AND Primal simultaneously, making the lists and the spell description an ambiguous unclear mess.



I don't actually think that's an issue, DnD has always had spells that crossed between lists and I think that I actually prefer it that way rather than having some spell lists missing out. I wouldn't want animate dead to be just arcane or divine, I want there to be necromancers or death cultists that have access to the spells like animate dead that help the theme.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I don't actually think that's an issue, DnD has always had spells that crossed between lists and I think that I actually prefer it that way rather than having some spell lists missing out. I wouldn't want animate dead to be just arcane or divine, I want there to be necromancers or death cultists that have access to the spells like animate dead that help the theme.



By referring to School lists instead, any class (or subclass) that has Necromancy will have access to _Animate Dead_.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 18, 2022)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> If they do keep this spell list system, and bar certain classes from certain schools, I hope they make the lists more user friendly by parsing out the spells by school at each level. I'd make it a lot easier to know which spells to notice and which to ignore.



I thought they have been doing this with their later books, including the school next to the spell. Granted I don't know of I'd rather have them organise the lists by level, then school, then spell or just keep doing it how they're doing it now with school listed after the spell.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 18, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I think it's an improvement, much easier to say X spell is an arcane spell rather than adding it to wizard, sorcerer, artificer and wondering if it should also be a warlock spell. Having three spell lists is much better than the 8 spell lists we have now.



The way I see it, being able to design a spell available to wizards and warlocks but not sorcerers (for instance) is a feature, not a bug. And I think it's going to be easier to do that on a case by case basis than by keeping track of the implications of each spell school/power source combination.



Minigiant said:


> 5 is better for a start and they can add more.
> 
> 5 is also how MTG does it and they are under the same roof.
> 
> With 5, they can easily future proof it by adding new lists if they include the new lists and classes that use them in the same books.



Five works well in MTG because the game was built from the ground up around five power sources with distinct mechanical and conceptual identities. D&D's spell lists are instead seeking to emulate a lot of ideosyncratic genre history. They could in theory be rebuilt in a more systematic way (perhaps something along the lines of @Yaarel 's proposal), but this would require a willingness to break with a lot of traditions, and I don't think the product would look at all like the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists.



tetrasodium said:


> Yes the benefits are real & two fold even beyond the ability to have setting/theme specific drop in replacements.
> 
> 
> Full casters who are masters of their particular power source at the cost of not getting a bunch of notable class features like the close runnerup who only gets all the top shelf spells & most of the rest actually get to feel like being a master of it is a meaningful thing
> ...



I think there are definitely benefits to having classes with extensive spell repetoires (like Wizards) alongside classes with shorter spell lists but more non-spell abilities (like Bards). But I think that customized lists can accomplish this better than shared lists with school restrictions.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Oct 19, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I thought they have been doing this with their later books, including the school next to the spell. Granted I don't know of I'd rather have them organise the lists by level, then school, then spell or just keep doing it how they're doing it now with school listed after the spell.



Maybe it's just me, but I'd find it easier to scan past a block of school sorted spells than individual spells tagged by school in an alphabetical list.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 19, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> The way I see it, being able to design a spell available to wizards and warlocks but not sorcerers (for instance) is a feature, not a bug. And I think it's going to be easier to do that on a case by case basis than by keeping track of the implications of each spell school/power source combination.
> 
> 
> Five works well in MTG because the game was built from the ground up around five power sources with distinct mechanical and conceptual identities. D&D's spell lists are instead seeking to emulate a lot of ideosyncratic genre history. They could in theory be rebuilt in a more systematic way (perhaps something along the lines of @Yaarel 's proposal), but this would require a willingness to break with a lot of traditions, and I don't think the product would look at all like the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists.
> ...



Class specific lists _can _yes, but the way they did that successfully without making more casting focused classes feel like their toys were being copied by classes with more class powers was 3.x's class specific spell levels.  If for example wotc put out a bovd-lite with necromancers & other evil casters in it there could be warlock & sorcerer archetypes that add any meaningfully thematic spells like the bard's songs of restoration without needing to give all of them to every warlock & every sorcerer even though they might be available to every wizard or every cleric as appropriate for the spell.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 19, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> Five works well in MTG because the game was built from the ground up around five power sources with distinct mechanical and conceptual identities. D&D's spell lists are instead seeking to emulate a lot of ideosyncratic genre history. They could in theory be rebuilt in a more systematic way (perhaps something along the lines of @Yaarel 's proposal), but this would require a willingness to break with a lot of traditions, and I don't think the product would look at all like the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists.



Modern D&D is built around 6 full casters plus half and third casters that copy most of their parent full casters spells with some uniques.


Bard
Cleric
Paladin

Druid
Ranger

Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard
Artificer

The only oddball is Bard whose source of magic is poorly replicated in the power source system as it is barely defined a what the Songs of Creation is, how it differs from Power Words and True Names, and how it theme comes about.

Modern D&D is built around a 5 list magic system with additional lists for setting based magicks (Psionics, Ki, Incarnum, Vestiges, True Names)

Really the problem is the Bard. Its power source doesn't make sense in Arcane/Divine/Primal/Shadow/???? and it lacks a cool name for it


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 19, 2022)

@Minigiant 

Heh, a cool name for the Bard power source is: Psionic.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 19, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Psionics could potentially be a problem for their Futureproofing too. Unless they either start have a 4th source list, or basically say "Psions based on Discipline use select schools from certain source lists"



In Pathfinder 1st edition, psionics was made into another form of magic. Psychic or Occult Magic. One of the things that made Psychic Magic different from the magic used by other spellcasters was it's two spell components- Thought and Emotion. To cast a psychic spell, you had to be thinking and emoting a certain way.


----------



## Vael (Oct 19, 2022)

From a flavour perspective, this is a win. Having Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists can do some world building.

Admittedly, the Bard is a tricky one, and it's definitely the class that is challenged most by this way of organizing spells (well, I expect the Artificer to face similar issues). But for the 3 main Arcane casters (Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard), this is a net win. From a generic feat/lineage perspective, I see this as a good simplification. As a fan of the Primal power source from 4e, I like making it a defined part of the game.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 19, 2022)

Vael said:


> But for the 3 main Arcane casters (Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard), this is a net win.



Not really, I'm not convinced they aren't going to gut sorcerer access to spells by school. Plus they might lose access to nonwizard spells they used to get. And anything that makes sorcerers care about schools is a net loss tobthe flavor and theme of the sorcerer.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 19, 2022)

1D&D just needs one spell list.

open to all.

then just have classes/subclasses give spells known/prepared extra from cantrips to level 5. 2 spells per spell level.

reduce the amount of spells known/prepared to 1 spell per caster level from levels 1-11 and then only one extra spell at levels 13,15 and 17.


trying to balance 3 or 5 or 10 separate spell lists is just fools errand.


outside spells, casters would get other defining features:

wizards get rituals and spell mastery,
sorcerers have metamagics,
clerics have divine interventions, channel divinity
druids have wild shape
bards have inspirations/expertise.
warlocks have invocations.



spellcasting subclass spells for example:

*Healer;*
cantrips; resistance, spare the dying
level 1; cure wounds, healing word
level 2; lesser restoration, healing spirit
level 3; mass healing word, revivify
level 4; Aura of light, death ward
level 5; mass cure wound, raise dead

*Necromancer;*
cantrips; chill touch, toll the dead
level 1; false life, inflict wounds
level 2; blindness/deafness, ray of enfeeblement
level 3; animate dead, summon undead
level 4; blight, shadow of moil
level 5; dance macabre, enervation

*Kineticist;*
cantrips; eldritch blast, mage hand
level 1; magic missile, shield
level 2; levitate, kinetic jaunt
level 3; fly, haste
level 4; Mordekainen's faithful hound, Otiluke's resilient sphere
level 5; animate objects, telekinesis

*Traveler;*
cantrips; guidance, mage hand
level 1; expeditious retreat, longstrider
level 2; misty step, vortex warp
level 3; thunder step, gaseous form
level 4; dimension door, find greater steed
level 5; passwall, teleportation circle

*Greenseer;*
cantrips; primal savagery, thorn whip
level 1; entangle, fog cloud
level 2; spike growth, pass without trace
level 3; plant growth, summon fey
level 4; guardian of nature, summon elemental
level 5; insect plague, wrath of nature

*Pyromancer;*
cantrips; firebolt, greenflame blade
level 1; burning hands, hellish rebuke
level 2; scorching ray, heat metal
level 3; fireball, ashardalon's stride
level 4; fireshield(fire), summon elemental(fire)
level 5; immolation, summon draconic spirit(fire)

*Mindbender:*
cantrips; friends, mind sliver
level 1; charm person, dissonant whispers
level 2; hold person, suggestion
level 3; enemies abound, fear
level 4; charm monster, phantasmal killer
level 5; dominate person, modify memory

*Illusionist;*
cantrips; message, minor image
level 1; disguise self, silent image
level 2; invisibility, mirror image
level 3; hypnotic patter, major image
level 4; greater invisibility, hallucinatory terrain
level 5; dream, seeming

*Defender;*
cantrips; bladeward, sword burst
level 1; absorb elements, armor of agathys
level 2; aid, blur
level 3; counterspell, dispel magic
level 4; banishment, freedom of movement
level 5; bigbies hand, dispel good and evil


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> @Minigiant
> 
> Heh, a cool name for the Bard power source is: Psionic.



I'd call it Astral and have Psionics, True Names, and Words of Creation linked to the Astral and Ethereal planes.

Bards would have access to all Astral spells except Conjuration.
Psions would have access to all Astral spells except Illusion 
Ardents wold be Astral halfcasters


----------



## Azzy (Oct 19, 2022)

Personally, I'm not a fan of these three lists. I much prefer classes have their own lists.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 19, 2022)

They tried this before and it was a mess.  I prefer class lists.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 19, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> And anything that makes sorcerers care about schools is a net loss to the flavor and theme of the sorcerer.



Not just sorcerers. It's a flavor fail for every spellcasting class except wizards. Why does a druid care about the distinction between transmutation and abjuration? Why does a cleric care, or a warlock, or a bard?

The eight schools were originally relevant to wizards and no one else, and that's how it should be.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 19, 2022)

As @FitzTheRuke pointed out in another thread, themed spell lists are great from a marketing point of view, since they allow the selling of spell cards, that are not class specific but also require more than onepurchase for completeness -- a happy balance between corporate greed and playable utility (my words, not his).


----------



## Cadence (Oct 19, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 5 is also how MTG does it and they are under the same roof.



The thing I like most about this is imagining the D&D equivalent of the MtG "Council of Colors", and finding out whichever poor D&D staffer on Twitter gets bombed with all the related questions like Maro does on Blogatog.




Minigiant said:


> With 5, they can easily future proof it by adding new lists if they include the new lists and classes that use them in the same books.




And I want to know what the spell list equivalent of Wastes would be (is that a new school, or is that martials   ).


----------



## FallenRX (Oct 19, 2022)

They are just trying to copy PF2E without anything that actually made it work there, 5e's way is far better and this unnecessarily just feels worse than using it.


----------



## Undrave (Oct 19, 2022)

I think it'll just result in all the casters just taking the same 'Best' spells over and over again.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 19, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I'd call it Astral and have Psionics, True Names, and Words of Creation linked to the Astral and Ethereal planes.
> 
> Bards would have access to all Astral spells except Conjuration.
> Psions would have access to all Astral spells except Illusion
> Ardents wold be Astral halfcasters



Force including telekinesis and gravity is the fifth element, sometimes called Ether, that associates with the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures are essentially living force constructs being physical yet immaterial.

Where the *Conjuration *school means telekinesis, fly, force, force construct, and magical energy, it associates with the spirit world of the Ethereal Plane. The Ethereal Plane is moreso part of Planar magic, but there is affinity with Conjuration. Where the *Evocation *school means the four elements − earth, water, air, and fire/sunlight − there is affinity between Evocation and the Elemental Planes.

The Astral Plane including its alignment Dominions is realms of pure thought, so has affinity with the *Enchantment *school of the mind effects.

Nevertheless, *Divination *is the go-to school for Scry and other remote-presence spacetime magic like Teleportation and Planar. Fate magic like _Bless_ to navigating timelines and temporal distortions like _Haste_ are also aspects of Scry and Teleportation respectively. All of it employing Divination.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Force including telekinesis and gravity is the fifth element, sometimes called Ether, that associates with the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures are essentially living force constructs being physical yet immaterial.
> 
> Where the *Conjuration *school means telekinesis, fly, force, force construct, and magical energy, it associates with the spirit world of the Ethereal Plane. The Ethereal Plane is moreso part of Planar magic, but there is affinity with Conjuration. Where the *Evocation *school means the four elements − earth, water, air, and fire/sunlight − there is affinity between Evocation and the Elemental Planes.
> 
> ...



The forcing of all casters and planes into 3 categories is 90% of the problem.

Separate *Astral* and *Ethereal* from *Arcane* into *Astral* or *Psionic* for Bards, Psions, Dancers, and Ardents.

Separate *Elemental Chaos* and *Inner Planes* from *Primal* into *Elemental* for Sorcerers, Wu Jen, and 4 Elements Monks.

Separate *Lower Planes, Feydark, *and* Dark Demiplane*s from *Arcane, Divine, *and* Primal *into Shadow or Eldritch for Warlocks and Hexblade.

If WOTC is tying spell lists to planes, well D&D is not a game with only 2 planar types. Base D&D has 4 types of planes. So that is at least 4 plus Arcane.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 19, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The forcing of all casters and planes into 3 categories is 90% of the problem.
> 
> Separate *Astral* and *Ethereal* from *Arcane* into *Astral* or *Psionic* for Bards, Psions, Dancers, and Ardents.
> 
> ...




*Enchantment *≈ Astral (thoughts)
*Conjuration *≈ Ethereal (fifth element: force)
*Evocation *≈ Elemental (earth, water, air, fire)
*Transmutation *≈ Lifeforms (plants, animals, shapeshifting, healing)
*Divination *≈ Spacetime (includes Planar contact and Planar travel, generally)
*Necromancy *≈ Planar Darkside (Undead, Fiend, and Aberration) (namely Shadow, Infernal, and Farrealm)

*Illusion *is the alteration of Reality itself, and the difference between subjective reality and objective reality blur. Illusory phenomena tend to be psychologically compelling and possibly real.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> *Enchantment *≈ Astral (thoughts)
> *Conjuration *≈ Ethereal (fifth element: force)
> *Evocation *≈ Elemental (earth, water, air, fire)
> *Transmutation *≈ Lifeforms (plants, animals, shapeshifting, healing)
> ...



That could work in another game but it doesn't match how D&D magic works.

It runs into the same problem.

The idea of power source spell list is great.
Forcing yourself to fit the base 9 full and half caster into exactly 3 spell lists in 2022 is bad.

D&D has 6 types of planes..4of which are "core". And then there are "core" concepts of subtypes of planes


Material Planes
Transitive Planes
Outer Planes 
Inner Planes
Demiplanes
Anomalous Planes

You can get classes and races to line up with them as you can add more or less. Spell schools, due to being hard locked at 8, is to rigid to line up with the 6 types of planes. Especially with Wizards and Arcane existing outside the planar categorization.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 19, 2022)

@Minigiant

These definitions for each Spell School derive from the bottom up from the mechanics and themes of D&D itself.

Go thru every spell in the game (and every feature of every class, every race, and every feat) and group them together by theme. You end up with these categories.

Notice, that Abjuration is missing because it is unlike the other themes. It is an end rather than a means. The other themes are means. Abjuration is a tag that indicates purpose. For example, _Cure Wounds_ 1st-Slot Transmutation (Healing, Abjuration), _Alarm_ 1st-Slot Divination (Scry, Abjuration), _Antimagic Sphere_ 8th-Slot Conjuration (Dweomer, Abjuration), and so on.

Broadly speaking the themes are Mind (Enchantment and Illusion), Matter (Evocation), and Life (Transmutation), plus Spirit (Divination and Conjuration), plus Nonmagic. Then there is a kind "Anti" theme (Necromancy as anti-mind, anti-matter, and anti-life).

Even the Nonmagic forms Mental (Knowledge and Persuasion), Physical (Weapons and Equipment), and Life (Athletics, Survival).

The Spell Schools correspond this deep structure of the D&D game.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 19, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The idea of power source spell list is great.
> Forcing yourself to fit the base 9 full and half caster into exactly 3 spell lists in 2022 is bad.



Each class strongly correlates a specific combination of Spell Schools.

Subclasses can tweak the School themes or import other School themes if necessary.

Compare how Paladin oaths and Cleric domains add new spells, in addition to the normal class Schools.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 19, 2022)

I think it's an absolutely terrible design choice for D&D. It seemingly confuses overall design simplicity with simpicity of actual use. It taxonomically simple at the cost of being much less accessible to anyone who hasn't already thoroughly digested the spell system. A new player is confronted with a much larger more unwieldy list of options to digest. WotC, and some commentators, seem to think a suggested list for a quick-roll-up character is a panacea for this problem, but this misunderstands new player psychology. _Many_ new players are drawn in by the promise of creating a custom character, and a pre-gen spell loadout is no more appealing than a pre-gen character.

It is "simpler" for veterans who have semi-memorized the spells. It will be easier to go from playing a Wizard to playing a Warlock. But there will be less reason to go from playing one to the other because there will be less thematic difference in spells. It seems like a system designed to let people live out all sorts of powergamey fantasies, and then get bored because the possibilities of the system can be used up on fewer characters (especially if they follow through with making everyone a prepared caster). At the same time it will also encourage people who have found a playstyle that works for them to just recreate that on every character, which I think most will find a recipe for medium-term comfort at the cost of incurring long-term boredom.

In summary it favors veterans over new players and perhaps ultimately lets the veterans down as well. Perhaps, if I am overstating the latter problem, it would be suitable for a project like LevelUp, that is explicitly aimed at veterans of the existing game, but for the flagship gateway game for the hobby it is an absolutely terrible design choice that is so wrongheaded it makes me doubt the design sensibilities of the current WotC team as a whole.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 20, 2022)

@Minigiant

Even going by the 4e "power source" terminology, it is still more useful to update the Spell Schools.

Primal ≈ *Transmutation *(lifeform, plant, animal, shapeshifting, healing)
Elemental ≈ *Evocation *(earth, water, air, fire)
Arcane ≈ *Conjuration *(force, fly, force construct, magical energy)
Divine ≈ *Divination *(spacetime, planar)
Psionic ≈ *Enchantment *(mind effects)
"Shadow" ≈ *Necromancy *(Undead, but also Fiend and Aberration)


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 20, 2022)

I did not read the whole thread so this might be mentioned before.

To me it feels like having exceptions like the Ranger uses the Primal list except evocation and the bard gets access to the arcane list but only these schools undermines any benefit a unified spell list would give you.
New players now need to learn more about spell schools to check if they are allowed a certain spell from the list.
Many might do this a few times, then go to the internet and find somebody who already did the work, print out the bard and ranger spell lists and put then in the back of their PHB for quicker easier reference.

To me it also feels like some of the spells that had their school changed in the playtest document had their school changed based on do we want the ranger or bard to have access to this spell.
And not if the school of magic was a better fit for what the spell does.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 20, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I think it's an absolutely terrible design choice for D&D. It seemingly confuses overall design simplicity with simpicity of actual use. It taxonomically simple at the cost of being much less accessible to anyone who hasn't already thoroughly digested the spell system. A new player is confronted with a much larger more unwieldy list of options to digest. WotC, and some commentators, seem to think a suggested list for a quick-roll-up character is a panacea for this problem, but this misunderstands no player psychology. _Many_ new players are drawn in by the promise of creating a custom character, and a pre-gen spell loadout is no more appealing than a pre-gen character.



Oh please, the spell lists aren't really that much larger than the current class spell lists and certainly isnt "unwieldy". Any new player that wants to create their own character rather than using a pregen is going to have to read up on everything in more detail anyway, even under the current system, this is no different.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 20, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> Oh please, the spell lists aren't really that much larger than the current class spell lists and certainly isnt "unwieldy". Any new player that wants to create their own character rather than using a pregen is going to have to read up on everything in more detail anyway, even under the current system, this is no different.



But they are larger, and unnecessarily so. And some classes will need to skim the larger list for specific schools, which is an additional and cumbersome level of complication (exponentially more so for the new to that class player, who has to keep in their head what particular schools they are looking for).

Overall, currently the OneD&D plan is to make a newer players both digest more spells (possibly keeping school in mind) as well as the feat system to make informed choices at character creation. That's objectively worse design for newer players, and collectively the choices seem to indicate a direction of less concern for new players than went into 5e design. Even if the spell list change is "no big deal" on this front, it seems indicative of a larger trend towards catering to veterans at the expense of novices for the new edition.

You may not care all that much about new player accessibility, but, as someone who spends several weeks every summer helping large numbers of children roll up their first characters at a summer camp, it is a top priority for me. As a company trying to keep their game the gateway game for the hobby it should be a top priority for WotC as well.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 20, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> But they are larger, and unnecessarily so. And some classes will need to skim the larger list for specific schools, which is an additional and cumbersome level of complication (exponentially more so for the new to that class player, who has to keep in their head what particular schools they are looking for).
> 
> Overall, currently the OneD&D plan is to make a newer players both digest more spells (possibly keeping school in mind) as well as the feat system to make informed choices at character creation. That's objectively worse design for newer players, and collectively the choices seem to indicate a direction of less concern for new players than went into 5e design. Even if the spell list change is "no big deal" on this front, it seems indicative of a larger trend towards catering to veterans at the expense of novices for the new edition.
> 
> You may not care all that much about new player accessibility, but, as someone who spends several weeks every summer helping large numbers of children roll up their first characters at a summer camp, it is a top priority for me. As a company trying to keep their game the gateway game for the hobby it should be a top priority for WotC as well.




Will the intro sets and free online rules have more limited choices still?

Would having suggested options (like they do for equipment) help?

Are pre-gens (with a few limited choices) the best way to get new players into a game?


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 20, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> Oh please, the spell lists aren't really that much larger than the current class spell lists and certainly isnt "unwieldy". Any new player that wants to create their own character rather than using a pregen is going to have to read up on everything in more detail anyway, even under the current system, this is no different.



The power source list with exceptions by (sub)class like the bard's songs of restoration & ranger's mark thing* even helps spotlight an important thing for a (sub)class ito those hypothetical newbies in ways that a class specific spell list would not while avoiding any impulse to dump too much into the base list for partial & niche casters.

*I'm on my phone... The new favored enemy?


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 20, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> But they are larger, and unnecessarily so. And some classes will need to skim the larger list for specific schools, which is an additional and cumbersome level of complication (exponentially more so for the new to that class player, who has to keep in their head what particular schools they are looking for).
> 
> Overall, currently the OneD&D plan is to make a newer players both digest more spells (possibly keeping school in mind) as well as the feat system to make informed choices at character creation. That's objectively worse design for newer players, and collectively the choices seem to indicate a direction of less concern for new players than went into 5e design. Even if the spell list change is "no big deal" on this front, it seems indicative of a larger trend towards catering to veterans at the expense of novices for the new edition.
> 
> You may not care all that much about new player accessibility, but, as someone who spends several weeks every summer helping large numbers of children roll up their first characters at a summer camp, it is a top priority for me. As a company trying to keep their game the gateway game for the hobby it should be a top priority for WotC as well.



This honestly sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. New players can read, they can note down which schools they're allowed as a handy dandy note, they're only engaging with level 1 spells at the beginning of the game which isn't really all that many spells. And these potential new players can ask questions if they're unsure of something, it really isn't that difficult. And if you still think that they'll have trouble, then stick with the basic rules because if they have that much trouble figuring things out then maybe you should limit their options.

Also, preselected spells are great for new players, it's not like they can't swap them out once they have a little more experience with the game.

See, it's not that I don't care about new player accessibility, I just think that it's there, you just have engage with those options instead of throwing everything at the new players.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 20, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Will the intro sets and free online rules have more limited choices still?
> 
> Would having suggested options (like they do for equipment) help?
> 
> Are pre-gens (with a few limited choices) the best way to get new players into a game?



In my experience pre-gens and suggested options are great for a few new players who just want to get into the action, but that the majority of new players are drawn to some degree by character creation and don't particularly want to make a character like every other character of that class. Even new players who will mostly unquestioningly accept the recommendations of a veteran player for spell choices or what have you, often seem to turn up their noses at WotC's suggested list (they don't want to build _the man's _Wizard). Ultimately pre-gens and quick-build suggestions are great to have, but they are not a replacement for accessible game design. 

What makes game design accessible is not to make it simple so much as to have players introduced to systems gradually. People aren't dumb, but there is a limit to how much new stuff they can process when the whole game is still abstract. If anything 5e D&D was already too front-loaded with stuff you need to digest right off the bat before you can play your first session, and so far OneD&D is just shaping up to be worse on this front.

The reason I take particular issue with the three spell list system is not because it is, in itself gamebreaking, but that I worry that the designers, like some commenters, think that "three is a smaller number of lists than one for each spellcasting class, hence it is simpler". It is "simpler" for people who have achieved a high level of system mastery and already know it, but it is not "simpler" for beginner or intermediate players trying to digest it an make informed decisions.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 20, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Each class strongly correlates a specific combination of Spell Schools.



No.

The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard, are designed in the image of having access to *ALL* Schools in their power source.
The Bard, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin, are designed with a strong correlation a specific combination of Spell Schools and having* exclusive* spells or *unique* effects on spells within their power source.

*That *is the core problem.

In the editions where base casting classes had the same power source, they shared access to some schools but had access to different sets of spells in those schools.

This is why I think WOTC did not start with Priests nor Mages. Because they need to know how we would tolerate specialist casters before they trot out the general as the former would be controversial in a shared list system.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 20, 2022)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> New players now need to learn more about spell schools to check if they are allowed a certain spell from the list.



They just have to check the Arcane/Primal/Divine spell list to see if the spell is on it. And that same table lists its spell school. So if a Bard wants to know if they can cast a certain spell, they just have to check the Arcane spell list to see if the spell is on it and is of a spell school they can cast. That's really not difficult.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 20, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They just have to check the Arcane/Primal/Divine spell list to see if the spell is on it. And that same table lists its spell school. So if a Bard wants to know if they can cast a certain spell, they just have to check the Arcane spell list to see if the spell is on it and is of a spell school they can cast. That's really not difficult.



The problem is how WOTC is muddling up the schools to make theme specialists and generalists use the same list despite having vastly different themes.

Sonic spells are moved to Transmutation so Bards and  can get them without having access to Evocation's other energy spells. Even though nothing is being transmuted,
Healing spells are moved to Abjuration so Rangers can heal. Even though D&D healing is described as emitting healing energy with.

Are you gonna ban Evocation from Artificers, give Artificers to Fireball, or change Fireball to Conjuration?

This makes the lore and meaning behind schools illogical.  Which then makes linking classes to schools illogical. And thus new player will be forced to look at the list every time as there will be even less rhyme or reason to spell schools.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 20, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> This honestly sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. New players can read, they can note down which schools they're allowed as a handy dandy note, they're only engaging with level 1 spells at the beginning of the game which isn't really all that many spells. And these potential new players can ask questions if they're unsure of something, it really isn't that difficult. And if you still think that they'll have trouble, then stick with the basic rules because if they have that much trouble figuring things out then maybe you should limit their options.




Look, I'm a classroom teacher. Every barrier to entry you accept on learning something is a few more people who will never bother learning it. Yeah new players can read, but that doesn't mean they want to read more before they play. Yes they can take notes, but few of them will. Nothing is an insurmountable barrier to the most dedicated learners, everything is a barrier to the disinterested. There is a vast group in between who will put in substantial effort but will feel overwhelmed at some point, and a game that doesn't hook them before it frustrates them into giving up is not a game they are ever going to learn.

I don't think the changes I'm complaining about are a "nobody could ever learn this impossible game" situation, but I think they are a "maybe 2% of the people who try the game who would have followed through on learning it and joining the hobby under 5e rules will feel overwhelmed and loose interest under 5.5 rules" situation. I'm offended not because the changes are major, but because they are in the wrong direction.

Game design is, in some ways unfortunately, dominated by the type of people who succeeded at learning games, just as teaching tends to be dominated by people who thrived in school. This creates a lot of blind spots. New teachers are almost always terrible on this front (though they often make up for it by having passion and enthusiasm the veterans have lost), but gradually as they have to actually teach they get a far better sense on how learning works for the kids who struggle. Game designers start with the comparable blind spot, but generally have a lot less interaction with the people who struggle to learn their games. I wouldn't be on WotC's case about it if they were a few indie designers doing their best, but they are the leaders in the field working on a comparatively giant and well-funded redesign project. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that, along with incorporating the input of the legal, marketing, cultural-sensitivity, etc. teams should, also be incorporating the input of someone with a firm grasp on educational theory and practice so that they optimize the game for actually being learned. So far 5.5 seems to be heading in the direction of less learning accessibility than 5e, and even if it's just "a little bit" less, that's still a worrying sign.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 20, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They just have to check the Arcane/Primal/Divine spell list to see if the spell is on it. And that same table lists its spell school. So if a Bard wants to know if they can cast a certain spell, they just have to check the Arcane spell list to see if the spell is on it and is of a spell school they can cast. That's really not difficult.




It's not difficult, but it's objectively _more _difficult than simply checking whether the spell is on the Bard list. Which is a problem if ease of use is being presented as one of the main benefits of the new system.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The problem is how WOTC is muddling up the schools to make theme specialists and generalists use the same list despite having vastly different themes.
> 
> Sonic spells are moved to Transmutation so Bards and  can get them without having access to Evocation's other energy spells. Even though nothing is being transmuted,
> Healing spells are moved to Abjuration so Rangers can heal. Even though D&D healing is described as emitting healing energy with.
> ...



Healing spells have moved around a few times.

In 2e they were necromancy
In 3.5 they were "Conjuration (Healing)"
I have no idea what they were in 4e
In 5e they are just "Conjuration" no (healing)
in the expert packet they are abjuration
Necromancy was probably the most accurate but conjuration isn't off the mark if they work like star trek's dermal regenerator doodads.  Abjuration might fit nice if the spell is influencing the luck aspect of HP.  With the exhaustion 1-10 it may well be that all HP are luck & training while the 1-10 exhaustion are what sometomes gets called "meat"


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 20, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Healing spells have moved around a few times.
> 
> In 2e they were necromancy
> In 3.5 they were "Conjuration (Healing)"
> ...



Just a small correction, they're evocation currently in 5e which I feel is fine as a school but it does mean that they need to change since otherwise rangers can't access them according to their available spell schools.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The problem is how WOTC is muddling up the schools to make theme specialists and generalists use the same list despite having vastly different themes.
> 
> Sonic spells are moved to Transmutation so Bards and  can get them without having access to Evocation's other energy spells. Even though nothing is being transmuted,
> Healing spells are moved to Abjuration so Rangers can heal. Even though D&D healing is described as emitting healing energy with.



Eh, spell schools were already muddled and nonsensical, so it's not as big of a deal for me. I would prefer if they just fixed spell schools, but if they're going to be nonsensical, they might as well make them a factor of class balance. 


Minigiant said:


> Are you gonna ban Evocation from Artificers, give Artificers to Fireball, or change Fireball to Conjuration?



Probably ban evocation from artificers and then add it back for specifically the Artillerist subclass.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The Bard, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin, are designed with a strong correlation *a specific combination of Spell Schools* and having exclusive spells or unique effects on spells within their power source.



Yeah, as I said, classes strongly correlate with a specific combination of Spell Schools. That also applies to the Wizard, see further on.

The Spells are a separate design space, and must be, because the high tier game engine depends on how spell slots scale in power in ways that are balanced for that level, reliable and well understood.

I oppose "exclusive spells" because they are almost always overpowered (for Wizard) or underpowered (for Druid) and skew the balance of the every spell that exists in a same spell slot.

I am ok with classes "having unique effects on spells" − like Warlock modifying _Eldritch Blast_ and Ranger modifying _Hunters Mark_ − because these power boosts are part of the class design space, not the spell design space. So the Evoker Wizard can have a feature that boosts the _Fireball_ spell.



Minigiant said:


> The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard, are designed in the image of having access to *ALL* Schools in their power source.



In 1e, the one class Wizard ("Magic-User") was any kind of spell casting concept, including "warlock", "sorcerer", "enchanter", "necromancer", and so on. Meanwhile, only the Wizard was a "full caster" with slots upto 9th. The other casters were part casters that could only reach the 7th slot or less. But today, there are different kinds of full caster classes. The Wizard needs to split away some schools, so it can specialize more, and so other full caster classes can have more design space for their own flavor concepts.

The Wizard is especially is known for "_Fireball_", in other words the Evocation school. I also associate the Wizard with the old school Illusionist. Meanwhile, magical energy and spell research generally is part of the class concept, whence an updated sense of Conjuration that relates to the magical energy of _Dispel Magic_ and force constructs, as well as force _Magic Missile_, telekinetic _Fly_, and so on.

Enchantment makes less sense for the Wizard today, and makes much more sense for the Bard and the Warlock today.

Transmutation in the sense of lifeforms, healing, shapeshifting, animals and plants, makes less sense for the Wizard, and more sense for the Druid and Bard.

Personally, I prefer the Wizard lacks the Necromancy school, and the Cleric and Warlock focus on it. (Traditionally the Cleric is the turner or the controller of Undead and Fiend, but today also the Warlock traffics with Undead, along with Fiend and Aberration.)

And so on. Today the "full casters" do well to focus the flavor thematically, to distinguish from each other.





Minigiant said:


> In the editions where base casting classes had the same power source, they shared access to some schools but had access to different sets of spells in those schools.



If the Schools are saliently thematic, they organize the spells better in the first place.

There is no need for a class to have a sloppy mishmash of any and every school. When each School is meaningful and mutually exclusive, it is clear which School is appropriate or not.

When Evocation is every elemental spell, then the Bard shouldnt have it. If Transmutation is the healing and lifeform spells, then the Wizard shouldnt have it.

Note, subclasses can modify the base class. For example, perhaps a certain Bard subclass grants access to Air Evocation spells, for wind of breath and thunder of voice − and maybe raging "flaring nostrils" and storm magic generally be part of this subclass too. But the Bard base class should avoid Evocation spells entirely.

Classes known for Evocation, in the sense of elemental magic, are Wizard, Druid, and Sorcerer.

And so on, with other schools strongly correlating with certain full caster classes.

Each full caster class leans into certain themes, and each School can update to supply the salient theme.



Compare Wizard and Psion.

The Psion feels primarily mind magic, namely the Enchantment School. From the perspective of the mind, the Psion also accesses the spells of certain other Schools including Conjuration (telekinesis and a personal magic aura separate from the ambient weave), Divination (for psychic readings and spacetime effects), and Transmutation (psychometabolism including shapechange and healing). There can be four subclasses, each to focus on one of these four schools.

By contrast, the Wizard feels primarily about Conjuration, researching the nature of ambient magic and its mysterious forces. From the perspective of the magic, the Wizard also accesses the spells of certain other Schools, including Evocation to reshape the matter of existence, and Illusion to alter the fabric reality. The Wizard is a "Creator" archetype.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 20, 2022)

One of the benefits of these spell lists is that when I was making a shaman class, I kind of wanted there to be just a primal spell list rather than creating a shaman spell list from scratch, now, assuming these spell lists go ahead, I'll just say they have access to the primal spell list and be done with it, much easier. They can hang out with the druids and talk about the differences in how they approach primal magic, through nature or through the elements.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 20, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> One of the benefits of these spell lists is that when I was making a shaman class, I kind of wanted there to be just a primal spell list rather than creating a shaman spell list from scratch, now, assuming these spell lists go ahead, I'll just say they have access to the primal spell list and be done with it, much easier. They can hang out with the druids and talk about the differences in how they approach primal magic, through nature or through the elements.



"Primal" ≈ Transmutation (lifeforms) with Evocation (elements)


----------



## the Jester (Oct 20, 2022)

In my opinion, this is a change for the sake of change without any real tangible benefits. It really doesn't improve anything; it muddies things for any class that doesn't (or shouldn't) have access to a full list. Clearly, my opinion isn't shared by everyone, but I just don't see this improving the game in any way. Does it simplify things? No, because the lists are not actually helping define what most of the classes get as spells- you have to comb through them by school to see what your bard can cast (and I am pretty sure a lot of bard players will accidentally take spells they shouldn't). Does it make the classes' spell lists better? I don't think so; it dilutes class identity (e.g. druids with cordon of arrows, bards with hex), and I don't think that's a plus.

If they're going to make a series of spell lists, I think they'd be better off making like 30 or 40 lists that are much more specific. Then your bard can choose three from Enchantment, Illusion, Song, Thunder, and blah blah blah, or your cleric can choose five from a long list of thematic 'spheres' (hearkening back to 2e), and so forth. But what a waste of page count.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 5 is better for a start and they can add more.
> 
> 5 is also how MTG does it and they are under the same roof.
> 
> With 5, they can easily future proof it by adding new lists if they include the new lists and classes that use them in the same books.



MTG has 5 colors. They have MANY lists.  All 5 colors + all the color combinations separately as lists + colorless.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I'd call it Astral and have Psionics, True Names, and Words of Creation linked to the Astral and Ethereal planes.
> 
> Bards would have access to all Astral spells except Conjuration.
> Psions would have access to all Astral spells except Illusion
> Ardents wold be Astral halfcasters



Illusion is right up a psion's alley, though, but Necromancy really isn't.  And bard's are more likely to be conjuring things than lobbing fireballs and lightning bolts.  

I'd go with...

Bards would have access to all Astral spells except Evocation.
Psions would have access to all Astral spells except for Necromancy.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 20, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Healing spells have moved around a few times.
> 
> In 2e they were necromancy
> In 3.5 they were "Conjuration (Healing)"
> ...



The point is that in 5e when it is Evocation, 2e as Necromancy,or 3e as Conuration , you could see it logically.

It was healing/radiant/positive energy that closed wounds, restored stamina, or restored luck. Cure Wounds was energy goes from hand to body.

What changed was which school emitted radiant/positive energy. Which was never Abjuration.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Eh, spell schools were already muddled and nonsensical, so it's not as big of a deal for me. I would prefer if they just fixed spell schools, but if they're going to be nonsensical, they might as well make them a factor of class balance.
> 
> Probably ban evocation from artificers and then add it back for specifically the Artillerist subclass.



No need to make it worse.

A Bard players should be able to hear about a sonic, healing, illusion, or meantal spell and say "Well that hits the bard's theme, I should be able to cast it.". Then just look up whether it is on the Bard list or Arcane.

Especially if Bard become prepared spellcaster.


Yaarel said:


> In 1e, the one class Wizard ("Magic-User") was any kind of spell casting concept, including "warlock", "sorcerer", "enchanter", "necromancer", and so on. Meanwhile, only the Wizard was a "full caster" with slots upto 9th. The other casters were part casters that could only reach the 7th slot or less. But today, there are different kinds of full caster classes. The Wizard needs to split away some schools, so it can specialize more, and so other full caster classes can have more design space for their own flavor concepts.
> 
> The Wizard is especially is known for "_Fireball_", in other words the Evocation school. I also associate the Wizard with the old school Illusionist. Meanwhile, magical energy and spell research generally is part of the class concept, whence an updated sense of Conjuration that relates to the magical energy of _Dispel Magic_ and force constructs, as well as force _Magic Missile_, telekinetic _Fly_, and so on.
> 
> ...



The big problem is that this is your preference but not D&D's.

The Wizard class of D&D is efined as being a scholarly caster who has a spell list that includes all 8 schools of spells. Same with Cleric and Druid.

*You would get Warlords in the 2024 PHB before you take away a single spell school from the Wizard or Cleric.*


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 20, 2022)

The main benefit of shared spell list is future proofing.

The main flaw of shared spell list is reconciliation of past and present. The Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard don't have the similar themes.

The easiest solution is not to put 5 very different classes in the same shared list.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 20, 2022)

This thread is about the pros and cons of this new spell list system, and yet people are turning it into how they would revise the system if they were king for the day, and those "fixes" seem more complicated and far removed from either 5e D&D or the One D&D playtest that I'm not sure what purpose they actually serve in this thread. 



Benjamin Olson said:


> Look, I'm a classroom teacher. Every barrier to entry you accept on learning something is a few more people who will never bother learning it. Yeah new players can read, but that doesn't mean they want to read more before they play. Yes they can take notes, but few of them will. Nothing is an insurmountable barrier to the most dedicated learners, everything is a barrier to the disinterested. There is a vast group in between who will put in substantial effort but will feel overwhelmed at some point, and a game that doesn't hook them before it frustrates them into giving up is not a game they are ever going to learn.
> 
> I don't think the changes I'm complaining about are a "nobody could ever learn this impossible game" situation, but I think they are a "maybe 2% of the people who try the game who would have followed through on learning it and joining the hobby under 5e rules will feel overwhelmed and loose interest under 5.5 rules" situation. I'm offended not because the changes are major, but because they are in the wrong direction.
> 
> Game design is, in some ways unfortunately, dominated by the type of people who succeeded at learning games, just as teaching tends to be dominated by people who thrived in school. This creates a lot of blind spots. New teachers are almost always terrible on this front (though they often make up for it by having passion and enthusiasm the veterans have lost), but gradually as they have to actually teach they get a far better sense on how learning works for the kids who struggle. Game designers start with the comparable blind spot, but generally have a lot less interaction with the people who struggle to learn their games. I wouldn't be on WotC's case about it if they were a few indie designers doing their best, but they are the leaders in the field working on a comparatively giant and well-funded redesign project. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that, along with incorporating the input of the legal, marketing, cultural-sensitivity, etc. teams should, also be incorporating the input of someone with a firm grasp on educational theory and practice so that they optimize the game for actually being learned. So far 5.5 seems to be heading in the direction of less learning accessibility than 5e, and even if it's just "a little bit" less, that's still a worrying sign.



This is all fair and good, but by my estimation as someone reading this thread, you haven't actually demonstrated that the new version is a greater barrier to entry than the old version. You certainly asserted it to be true, but the "truth" of that assumption seems to rest more on your own prejudices than any demonstrable evidence.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 20, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> This is all fair and good, but by my estimation as someone reading this thread, you haven't actually demonstrated that the new version is a greater barrier to entry than the old version. You certainly asserted it to be true, but the "truth" of that assumption seems to rest more on your own prejudices than any demonstrable evidence.



Figuring out which schools the Bard can choose spells from, and then sorting those schools out of a larger Arcane list is objectively more difficult than digesting a smaller list basically anyway you slice it. I don't know what better demonstration there is than that.

At this point I've seen multiple ways in which a new player has to grapple with a larger chunk of options out the gate in OneD&D than in 5e. I've seen little that seems to make things more beginner friendly, beyond more extensive implementation of recommended or default options, which in my experience the majority of new players will simply turn their noses up at (they're good to have, but if that's what the designers think passes for making the system accessible they are confused). It may not add up to much yet but the overall direction seems to be towards higher barriers to entry everywhere I look.

Feel free to remain unpersuaded, I'm tired of talking about it.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 20, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> This thread is about the pros and cons of this new spell list system, and yet people are turning it into how they would revise the system if they were king for the day, and those "fixes" seem more complicated and far removed from either 5e D&D or the One D&D playtest that I'm not sure what purpose they actually serve in this thread



The underlying theme of the conversation is that the spell lists are barely "currentproofed" so it likely won't be futureproofed.

They made it easier to add new spells to a class's list by making figuring out a class's list harder.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 20, 2022)

Until they actually figure out the presentation and layout of spells in the actual book its kind of hard to make any real judgements.  But if we take the current presentation as a guideline for 2024, this is what things would look like:

_We will have all the spellblocks still in alphabetical order just like we do now._ 

- I do not believe this will change.  Because of the fact that multiple spells apply to two or more of the arcane/divine/primal group lists... you can't just print the spells in their individual spell groups unless you intend on printing those spells more than once in each different list they apply to.  As I do not think they would do that, I do not think they will print the spells by group and will keep them alphabetical.

_In front of the spellblock section will be the three spellgroup lists-- arcane, divine, and primal-- spells listed alphabetically._

The same way we have every classes spell list right now at the front of the spells chapter, they will print the three spell group lists.  This is fine for the wizard, cleric, and druid, as we expect those three classes to have full access to the entire lists.  Those three group lists basically become the individual class list for those three classes.

_For the other classes they will either list the schools they have access to within the spell group in their Class write-up, or they will actually print a class list of their specific spells from those groups at the front of the Spells chapter alongside the three full group write-ups._ 

I don't think we can say for sure which way WotC is going to necessarily do yet.  Our expectations right now as players reading these playtests packets are that I think we are suspecting WotC is going to just do for all the other classes what they currently do for the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster subclasses-- they don't have their own spell lists printed in the Spells chapter but instead we are just told in the Spells section of their Sub-class write up the two spells schools they get from within the Wizard class list.  So when people are saying this will be more difficult to figure out what spells the other classes get (Bard, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock) it is true.  You'll have to remember which of the three Spell groups applies to the class, the spell schools the class gets within that Spell group, and then go through the spells individually in that spell group to find out what schools they belong to.

But again... this of course assumes the formatting I listed above for the spell lists.  WotC _could_ save a step for us by printing the three spell groups not alphabetically... but by spell school _and then_ alphabetically within each school.  So at least it would be a little easier for players to demarcate which spells they are getting, rather than having to go into every single spellblock to find its school.

Now there is also a third option for the spell lists that is possible, but really will depend on how people are responding-- which is to just print each classes spell list at the front of the Spells chapter exactly as we have it now.  The catch of course being that "behind the scenes" the spells on their list are still following the formats WotC has currently given us-- spells are still divided by spell group and certain classes only get certain schools within that spell group.  But perhaps they just don't categorize the spells forward-facing like that and instead we just see what we see right now in 2014.  This is certainly possible... however at that point it does beg the question of why even bother with the spell groups and selected spell schools if you are going to just print spell lists by class anyway.  At that point you might as well just make individual lists as we currently have, and thus don't have to jerry-rig solutions like we see right now for the Bard and their Songs of Restoration-- you can just put those spells back into the Bard's spell list.



> >>>>>>>




So this is the formatting questions we will potentially see being answered going forward.  But there's the other question itself, which is how actually useful are these new divisions?  Do they serve a purpose (both mechanically and/or flavorfully)?

As mentioned above... mechanically they do create an extra step or two for all the classes that will only being using parts of the spell group, because they have to figure out group _and_ school now, not just a single list.  But the question off of that issue though is this-- just how much of a stumbling block is that _really_?

For that I don't think we can take any of our own opinions on the ease or usefulness of this stuff at face value here... because there's one truth I've seen played out here on EN World for over 20 years... which is that any time someone posts an opinion on why something should be different in the game and their reason for that change is "THINK OF DA NEWBS!"... invariably it just _happens_ to coincide with the exact direction they themselves want the game to go.  Imagine that!  Someone wants the game to be different, but not for them!  Oh no!  No, no... the change is for _new_ players... to make it easier _for them_.  The fact that the player also gets exactly what they want is just a happy coincidence.

Which is to say that none of us can really state with any objectivity whether or not asking the player of a Paladin to take two steps to figure out what their spells are-- group and schools-- is _really_ such a hardship.  I mean really, we D&D players look up so much goshdarn crap throughout all of these books all the time that there's no way to say with 100% certainty that THIS is a bridge too far.  For all we know, we make mountains out of molehills about all of this.  Is it an extra step that wasn't there before?  Absolutely.  Is that step an _issue_ for old or new players alike?  Not necessarily.

But if not that, then what?  What truly is gained by changing these formats?  Or is it just a re-categorization for change's sake?  I'll be honest... when I first saw the packet, my immediate thought was "That seems pointless."  I didn't know what was gained from the re-categorization of spells into the three groups, other than returning classes kind of back to a 4E power sources format.  But that really ends up being more about flavor than it is mechanics-- they are trying to drive home the fluffy connection between Druids and Rangers by giving them the same spell group.  Paladins again become attached at the hip to the Cleric... despite the 2014 having tried to separate them by saying things like "Cleric magic is granted them by their god, paladin magic manifests from the Oath they have taken."

The only reason I personally can think of why this flavorful re-direction of classes would be useful is Psionics.  If you intend on making the Psion a true class and you intend on using spells as their manifestation format... having an independent spell group of "Psionic spells" that we can see as being "Psionic spells" would go a long way to separating them from the Arcane, Divine, and Primal spells.  Now granted, the Psionic spell group would almost certainly include a number of spells that also appear on the other three group lists-- no reason to re-invent the wheel and create a new telekinetic magic rather than just give the Psionic group the same Telekinesis spell that is already on the Arcane list.  If WotC actually did this... then maybe I could see a little bit of use, especially if they made additional Psionic classes or subclasses that only used parts of the Psionic spell group.

Although even then, to be perfectly honest... to me even this seems like _barely_ a thing.  Because the people who want true psionics don't want spells _at all_, so it doesn't matter what kind of "flavorful re-categorization" WotC creates, it ain't gonna please most of those players.  And most of the other players who aren't that invested in psionics anyways probably wouldn't care if the Psion's magic was listed in a Psionic spell group or just in an individual Psion spell list to match the style of what we have in 2014.  Either way is fine.

So at the end of the day from my personal perspective... I don't see the point in this change.  I don't think it's necessary.  That being said... I also don't think it causes any real issues so I won't care one way or the other should WotC decide to keep going with it.  It'll be for me "Okay, fine... this has now changed a little bit, whatever."  It's not going to impact me at all because... quite frankly... it's like nothing more than just changing the folder names on your computer desktop.  I'll have it in head after like 30 minutes of use and I'll never think about it having been changed again.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 20, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Figuring out which schools the Bard can choose spells from, and then sorting those schools out of a larger Arcane list is objectively more difficult than digesting a smaller list basically anyway you slice it. I don't know what better demonstration there is than that.



I think that's pretty much unarguable, yes.

Using schools to limit the lists is not smart. The schools are total and utter mess (always have been), spells are not where you expect them, and every reorganisation proposed just moves the problem around a bit.

If they'd given Bards the full Arcane list, they could at least argue for simplicity. As they didn't, they can't. Anyone playing a Bard will essentially have to maintain a spell list which is the "Bard" spell list.


Benjamin Olson said:


> It may not add up to much yet but the overall direction seems to be towards higher barriers to entry everywhere I look.



I mean, I don't see any real evidence for this, but what I also don't see is any evidence of barriers really being meaningfully lower. So far in the 1D&D playtest, in terms of accessibility/barriers to entry, it's been consistently "one step forwards, one step back". Some things are easier to deal with, more straightforward. But equally then other things are more complex or require more player effort.

It feels like there isn't a consistent push towards greater accessibility. And maybe that's intentional? But it's weird.

I think there's a reasonable accessibility, balance and design argument for moving to preparation for all classes (though an equal argument would apply to moving to "known" for all, but that would require more dead sacred cows), but the spell lists, as currently implemented, don't really seem to serve many obvious goals.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 20, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> This thread is about the pros and cons of this new spell list system, and yet people are turning it into how they would revise the system if they were king for the day, and those "fixes" seem more complicated and far removed from either 5e D&D or the One D&D playtest that I'm not sure what purpose they actually serve in this thread.



The playtest forum is unfortunately littered with this kind of thing. I find all the what amounts to houserule proposals unproductive and out of place in discussing the actual playtest.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 20, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> One of the benefits of these spell lists is that when I was making a shaman class, I kind of wanted there to be just a primal spell list rather than creating a shaman spell list from scratch, now, assuming these spell lists go ahead, I'll just say they have access to the primal spell list and be done with it, much easier. They can hang out with the druids and talk about the differences in how they approach primal magic, through nature or through the elements.



I, unfortunately, went through the painstaking process of creating a whole spell list when I created my Shaman.  But in addition to spells from the Druid list, I also added a lot of spells from the Warlock list.  Maybe because of the theme of my Shaman being a nature-based spellcaster, as well as an elemental-based caster, with hints of spooky, creepy, eerie spells tacked on.  I should probably mention that my Shaman was originally based on the WoW class at the behest of my daughter.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 20, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> In 1e, the one class Wizard ("Magic-User") was any kind of spell casting concept, including "warlock", "sorcerer", "enchanter", "necromancer", and so on.



Correction, *pretended *to be, but it was anything but.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 20, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> As mentioned above... mechanically they do create an extra step or two for all the classes that will only being using parts of the spell group, because they have to figure out group _and_ school now, not just a single list. But the question off of that issue though is this-- just how much of a stumbling block is that _really_?



Take into account that classes that used to care about new spells once every few sessions now have to care every time there is a long rest. So it is even more annoying and difficult now.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 20, 2022)

There was an issue with sorcerers, bards, warlocks, and rangers not knowing enough spells but a better way to resolve that could have been to give them an extra known spell at level 1 or whenever they gained a feat.  Even giving them specific spells based off their subclass to add flavour might not have been frowned upon too much.  Warlocks having to learn their subclass spells using their existing known spell slots was a bummer for sure.

I often wonder why tome warlocks never got any invocations to increase spells known.

I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.


----------



## Composer99 (Oct 20, 2022)

I don't think the PHB is meant to be an instructional text as such, so I don't know that the fact that newer players might be troubled by the potential structure of the new spell lists in the PHB proper is a problem, or at least as much of a problem as it's presented as.

As far as parsing out spell lists based on school access goes, I expect that is part of the push for going digital, because having a filterable table of spells turns that task into a cinch rather than a chore.


----------



## Undrave (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> This makes the lore and meaning behind schools illogical. Which then makes linking classes to schools illogical. And thus new player will be forced to look at the list every time as there will be even less rhyme or reason to spell schools.



They were always illogical to an extant IMO, this is just making the cracks worse. 


tetrasodium said:


> I have no idea what they were in 4e



They were powers with the 'Healing' keyword, regardless of power source. Spell Schools were only gracelessly kludged back into the Mage in Essentials as the Super Unique Special Awesome keywords for Special Boy Wizards. 


Yaarel said:


> The Wizard needs to split away some schools, so it can specialize more, and so other full caster classes can have more design space for their own flavor concepts.



YES! 

The Wizard players will NEVER allow it though as that would make them less special and powerful.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 23, 2022)

The  Bard actually seems to work well if you just give them all Divination/Illusion/Tramsmutation/Enchantment spells from all power sources, not just arcane.

The only non-Arcane Illusion is Silence, which is normally a bard spell anyways. 

With Divination, there's a host of new spells, like Detect Traps or Detect Poison, Speak with Animals, as well as the Commune (/with nature) spells and Guidance/Divination/Augury.  The Detect spells are extremely niche and kinda bad. Arcane already has its own version of Commune, Contact Other Plane, which is arguably better if more dangerous.  The druidic themed ones are things bard should have by default. Guidance, Augury and divination are the only new, really stand out ones, which are either overlaping with Bardic Influence already (I'm looking at you, Guidance) or heavily reliant upon DMs, which is questionable.

Enchantment would offer six new spells, all 1st circle - Bane, Bless, Heroism, Command, Compell Duel and Charm Animal.  All thematically appropriate for Bards to have. Well, maybe not Duel, but its not like it will ever be a game breaking choice for a sword bard to take. 

Transmutation might be an issue - a wide variety of food based production, shillelagh, bark skin, a few ranger-bow spells.... but I'm not seeing anything that would break anything anymore than the Arcane Transmutation list already does.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 23, 2022)

Mephista said:


> The  Bard actually seems to work well if you just give them all Divination/Illusion/Tramsmutation/Enchantment spells from all power sources, not just arcane.
> 
> The only non-Arcane Illusion is Silence, which is normally a bard spell anyways.
> 
> ...





Spoiler: 34 Total Divination Spells



true strike
detect magic
identify
detect thoughts
locate object
see invis
clairvoyance
Sending
Tongues
Arcane Eye
locate creature
contact other plane
Legend Lore
Rary's telepathic bond
Scrying
True seeing
Telepathy
Foresight
guidance
Dretect evil & good
Detect Magic
Detect poison & disease
Augury
Find Traps
divination
commune
Legend Lore
Find the path
True seeing
Hunter's Mark
Speak with animals
Beast sense
Locate animals or plants
Commune with nature





Spoiler: 28 Total Illusion Spells



Dancing Lights
Minor illusion
Color spray
Disguise Self
Illusory Script
Silent Image
Blur
Invisibility
Magic Mouth
Mirror Image
Phantasmal Force
Fear
Hypnotic Pattern
Major Image
Phantom Steed
Greater Invis
Hallucinatory Terrain
Phantasmal Killer
Creation
Dream
Mislead
Seeming
Programmed Illusion
Mirage Arcane
Project Image
Simulacrum
Weird
Silence





Spoiler: 34 Total Enchantment Spells



Vicious Mockery
Charm Person
Dissonant whispers
Hex
Sleep
Tasha's hideous Layughter
Calm Emotions
Crown of Madness
Enthrall
Hold Person
Suggestion
Compulsion
Confusion
Dominate Person
Geas
Hold Monster
Modify Memory
Mass Suggestion
ottos irresistable Dance
Antipathy/Sympathy
Dominate Monster
Feeblemind
Glibness
Power Word Stun
Power Word Kill
Bane
Bless
Command
Compelled Duel
Heroism
Zone of Truth
Animal Friendship
Animal Messenger
Dominate Beast





Spoiler: 68 Total Transmutation Spells



Mending
Perstidigitation
Expeditious Rertreat
Feather Fall
Jump
Longstrider
Thunderwave
Alter Self
Blindness/Deafness
Darkvision
Enlarge/reduce
Knock
Levitate
Magic Weapon
Rope Trick
Shatter
Spider Climb
Blink
Fly
Haste
Slow
Water Breathing
Control Water
Fabricate
Polymorph
Stoneshape
Stoneskin
Animate Objects
Passwall
Telekinesis
Disintegrate
Flesh To Stone
Move Earth
Etheralness
Reverse Gravity
Sequester
Control Weather
Shapechange
Tiomestop
true Polymorph
Thaumaturgy
Purify Food & Drink
Etheralness
Regenerate
Druidcraft
Message
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip
Create or Destroy Water
Goodberry
Barkskin
Cordon of Arrows
Darkvision
Enhance Ability
Heat Metal
Spike Growth
Elemental Weapon
Lightning Arrow
Meld into stone
Plant Growth
Speak With Plants
Water Breathing
Water Walk
Control Water
Giant Insect
Awaken
Move Earth
Wind Walk
Animal Shapes
Control Weather


I should certainly hope that the resulting one hundred sixty four spell spell selection "_seems to work_" when the 2014 phb bard spell list consists of 121 spells if I counted right.  By comparison the entire arcane spell list has 230 spells with 105 in Divine & 123 in Primal.  *Given the list that "seems to work" is significantly larger than the Divine & Primal lists respectively in addition to being quite a bit larger than the 2014 bard list wouldn't it be odd if a list just over 70% the size of the entire arcane list did not "seem to work"?*


----------



## Mephista (Oct 23, 2022)

Look, its a solution that works if the writers insist on going forwards with this whole spell school thing. 

The resulting spell list is big, yes, but lets be fair.  Most of it is bloated with extremely niche spells that very likely will never see use, or there's significant overlap with other spells already, or have been called trap options or useless. Size isn't everything here, especially when these are considered the four worst of the eight schools.

Would I prefer its own list? Yes.  Do I epext them to?  No.  

Do I see the value in limited spell lists?  Yes - it avoids their thrice bedamned wizard bias, giving the bookworms all the good spells and ignoring every who's not a druid, cleric or warlock.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 23, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I should certainly hope that the resulting one hundred sixty four spell spell selection "_seems to work_" when the 2014 phb bard spell list consists of 121 spells if I counted right.  By comparison the entire arcane spell list has 230 spells with 105 in Divine & 123 in Primal.  *Given the list that "seems to work" is significantly larger than the Divine & Primal lists respectively in addition to being quite a bit larger than the 2014 bard list wouldn't it be odd if a list just over 70% the size of the entire arcane list did not "seem to work"?*



I ended up saying kind of the same thing in my survey... how even just for 1st and 2nd level spells the Arcane group had almost double the spells at each of those levels as either the Divine or Primal.  And thus making the spell group lists only highlighted this disparity and made it more plain that they probably should be balanced out a bit more.  Move some spells of of Arcane and over to Divine and/or Primal, remove some Arcane altogether, or else bump up both groups with more spells of their own.

I personally would not expect the removal of Arcane spells, since two of the classes (Wizard and Sorcerer) are much more AoE focused than the classes in Divine and Primal and thus that group ends up needing more attack spells overall to cover single-target adjacent, short range, and long range as well as multi-target adjacent, short range and long range.  Divine and Primal traditionally do not have that much spell-based attack spell needs.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 23, 2022)

Mephista said:


> Look, its *a solution that works* if the writers insist on going forwards with this whole spell school thing.
> 
> The resulting spell list is big, yes, but lets be fair.  Most of it is bloated with extremely niche spells that very likely will never see use, or there's significant overlap with other spells already, or have been called trap options or useless. Size isn't everything here, especially when these are considered the four worst of the eight schools.
> 
> ...



The spell list in the expert packet "works", the level 6-7 bard in my group even thought it was an improvement when we tested things.


DEFCON 1 said:


> I ended up saying kind of the same thing in my survey... how even just for 1st and 2nd level spells the Arcane group had almost double the spells at each of those levels as either the Divine or Primal.  And thus making the spell group lists only highlighted this disparity and made it more plain that they probably should be balanced out a bit more.  Move some spells of of Arcane and over to Divine and/or Primal, remove some Arcane altogether, or else bump up both groups with more spells of their own.
> 
> I personally would not expect the removal of Arcane spells, since two of the classes (Wizard and Sorcerer) are much more AoE focused than the classes in Divine and Primal and thus that group ends up needing more attack spells overall to cover single-target adjacent, short range, and long range as well as multi-target adjacent, short range and long range.  Divine and Primal traditionally do not have that much spell-based attack spell needs.



Divine casters have traditionally had more class features(plus armor/hit die size/etc) with a smaller spell list than equivalent arcane casters with less features & more spells.  With warrior priest & mage group  classes such a blank slate  at this point though  it's hard to form any conclusions there.  Personally I hope that mage group classes go back to being squishy again


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 24, 2022)

The power sources are more about how one casts spells, rather than which spells one casts.

Psionic uses the mind and aura.
Arcane uses implements and material components.
Primal uses attunement to elements and life.
Divine uses symbols and community.

Each class might use the same power source and its spellcasting method, but for a different spell list.


----------

