# What do you think of the new rules for preparing spells?



## ECMO3 (Dec 12, 2022)

On one hand, it is a lot easier no more math and adding casting stat to your level, or half your level.

On the other hand I think this will make 13-stat caster dips a lot more viable which could be both good and bad.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2022)

Hate it. 5e’s spell prep is one of my favorite aspects of 5e casters.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 12, 2022)

Do not want.


----------



## Ondath (Dec 12, 2022)

I hate it, and my group does too. It completely flattens any input from having a good main casting stat, and really destroys the kind of flexibiliy the older system had. In the old system, a 4th level Wizard with 18 INT can prepare 8 spells. They can choose to prepare four 1st and four 2nd-level spells, or 2 1st-level and 6 2nd-level spells or anything inbetween. This allows them to be a lot better prepared depending on the situation.

Under OneD&D's new system, every 4th-level Wizard can only prepare 4 1st-level and 3 2nd-level spells, no exceptions. Not only did the full casters lose the flexibility about which spell levels to prioritize (our party's wizard only prepare 3 1st-level spells and saves the rest on more important, higher-level spell selection for instance), but they're no longer rewarded for prioritising raising Intelligence either.

I can see how the old system felt complicated, but having taught the game to 10+ new people, they usually caught on if you gave people a little time, and most of the time an analogy of "Each spell you prepare is like a gun you choose, and the spell slots are the bullets you can use for your guns" was sufficient. I feel like this is pointless simplicity.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 12, 2022)

I like the new flex vancian. It does a nice job of preserving niche spells of lower levels rather than pressuring a caster to prepare ony/mostly "iconic" & other top shelf spells... That has an impact further. By ensuring that there is more room certain mfic items too.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I like the new flex vancian.




See, it’s totally catching on!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 12, 2022)

I have mixed feelings about. I can see it as a simplifying move and I do not mind it for some casters. I would like to be able to overload spells at a level and I also liked that some casters were spells known but it is not a dealbreaker for me.


----------



## glass (Dec 12, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> On one hand, it is a lot easier no more math and adding casting stat to your level, or half your level.



"Easier"? It look a lot fiddlier to me!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 12, 2022)

It certainly nerfs high level casters. Probably a good thing.


----------



## Shiroiken (Dec 12, 2022)

I think it's a good thing, and no one has had any issues with it in my playtest group. When I've played a full caster in the past, I've found that my prepped/known spells would end up tilting towards the higher levels, leaving fewer in the in lower and mid-level. This forces casters to have a standardized downward curve, and makes your selection of high level spells _much_ more important.

As far as easy vs complicated, I think it's easier for new players but more difficult for those who've played 5E. I have concerns about how this will work for multiclassing, where you'll have to look up multiple spots to determine what to prepare vs. what you can actually cast. The other option would be to severely limit the number of spells a multiclass character can prepare.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Dec 12, 2022)

While I'd like to see the power and versatility of high-end casters reduced a little, this is an awkward and fiddly way to go about it. I'd prefer the current system.

Although the thought strikes that one way to reduce the power of Wizards while keeping their flavour and historical capabilities, would be to return them to the full Vancian spell memorisation system.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 12, 2022)

Hate it!
0/10.

I would rather see that spell points variant becomes default and this as an option for "simpler" design.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 12, 2022)

I don't hate it, but I think it's inferior to the current method.  Being able to sacrifice low level options for versatility with higher level slots was a strength of the system, which I'm not a fan of losing.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 12, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> I don't hate it, but I think it's inferior to the current method.  Being able to sacrifice low level options for versatility with higher level slots was a strength of the system, which I'm not a fan of losing.



I would not worry, I think that this will score well below 50% approval in survey, let alone 70% that is kind of default for implementation.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 12, 2022)

It was a relatively simple way of trying to address one of the traditional complaints about the Wizard, which was they were too powerful and had "too much utility" (and you can go find that Wizard+ thread right now to see plenty of people still ranting about that.)  Having more high-level magic prepared facilitated that, and this new set of rules curtails it a bit.

It also addresses another situation, which was the newly added idea that all classes can cast any ritual spell they have prepared as a ritual.  With most rituals being 1st level, having characters forced to prepare more 1st level spells means more ritual spells get prepared, meaning more ritual spells actually being able to be cast _as_ rituals.  The 2014 book had the issue that all the classes with Ritual Casting (besides the Wizard) had to have their ritual spells prepared in order to then cast them as rituals... but if you were a higher-level caster how often did your Clerics or Druids and the like actually prepare those 1st level spells for that function?  Seems to me everyone tended to only prepare the highest end 1st-levle spells (like _Bless_ and the like)... and the ritual spells got ignored.  Which meant that Ritual Caster feature was essentially useless for a lot of PCs.  At least with this new system with you now forced to prepare more 1st level spells... you might as well throw in a couple ritual spells so that you can cast them as rituals later on and save yourself the spell slot.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 12, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I would not worry, I think that this will score well below 50% approval in survey, let alone 70% that is kind of default for implementation.



That presumes the ballots aren't already "in." I mean, EVERYTHING  scored high in the previous survey? Sus.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 12, 2022)

Ondath said:


> but they're no longer rewarded for prioritising raising Intelligence either.



Because extra spell attack modifier and spell save DC is meaningless? Seriously, of all the criticisms I have (and there are many) this one feels like a non-criticism to me.

Fundamentally it feels like an extra layer of faff whenever you want to pick spells; you have to fill multiple buckets rather than just one and it doesn't add many advantages. I'm rating it with a 2 not a 1 but I still really don't like it.


----------



## delericho (Dec 12, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That presumes the ballots aren't already "in." I mean, EVERYTHING  scored high in the previous survey? Sus.



If I were running things and wanted to 'fix' the survey results, I would deliberately drop in a few things that I was sure people would hate, so that I could publicly reverse course and so prove that I was listening to the feedback.

But that's if I wanted to take a cynical view. It's also entirely possible that most things scored high because most of the people in the playtest (and who bothered to fill in the surveys) liked most things.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 12, 2022)

glass said:


> "Easier"? It look a lot fiddlier to me!



It’s definitely easier. It just isn’t easier in a way that matters. Anyone who can play D&D can add (half for half casters) their level and their ability mod to see how many spells they can cast. 

But yeah, “here’s a table that shows what spell levels you have the ability to cast, and how many you can cast. The number you can prepare is the same as the number of spell slots you have for that level”, is technically easier. 


Horwath said:


> I would not worry, I think that this will score well below 50% approval in survey, let alone 70% that is kind of default for implementation.



I wouldn’t bet on it. I think there is a good chance that it is simpler enough that most people will love it.

I’ve seen _*no*_ negative chatter on social media from casual players about it, and not much overall. What little chatter I’ve seen has been fairly positive. 

Hopefully you’re right, but I don’t think we are gonna get what we want on that one. 


Reynard said:


> That presumes the ballots aren't already "in." I mean, EVERYTHING  scored high in the previous survey? Sus.



That’s completely ridiculous, and founded in literally nothing but cynicism.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 12, 2022)

A thought I had. What if wizards don’t have this restriction, and that is part of what makes them stand out in a field where the only other advantage they have over any other full spellcaster is a few semi-exclusive powerhouse spells?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 12, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s completely ridiculous, and founded in literally nothing but cynicism.



I didn't claim otherwise. I also don't think this playtest is actually a playtest so much as a marketing campaign. 

On topic: it seems like an unnecessary change that has the net effect of reducing player choice in how they build their caster. To what benefit?


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 12, 2022)

glass said:


> "Easier"? It look a lot fiddlier to me!



Yeah the new version is in no ways simpler, quite the contrary. In the old one it was simple, I get X spells, pick what you want. Now you have to double check that you picked 4 1st and 2 2nd exactly, that's a lot more effort.

I think the new version is just bad. It makes you weaker at low levels, its less flexible, I think its actually more compex since you have to track more specifically...I don't see the appeal in the slightest.


----------



## delericho (Dec 12, 2022)

For the benefit of those of us with no access to D&D Beyond, any chance of a summary of the change?


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 12, 2022)

I've been following the UAs and I didn't even realize the spell casting prep has changed. When did they change it?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah the new version is in no ways simpler, quite the contrary. In the old one it was simple, I get X spells, pick what you want. Now you have to double check that you picked 4 1st and 2 2nd exactly, that's a lot more effort.
> 
> I think the new version is just bad. It makes you weaker at low levels, its less flexible, I think its actually more compex since you have to track more specifically...I don't see the appeal in the slightest.



I'm not entirely sure it's a whole lot more complex, but it does seem to defeat the purpose of the approach to spell selection that 5e encouraged. You certainly could cast a spell at its normal, inherent slot. But one of the great developments in 5e is enhanced support for casting at higher levels. Having a single list of prepared spells encouraged thinking of them as spells that weren't tied to a particular slot.


----------



## renbot (Dec 12, 2022)

I think it would be fine *IF *(and that's a big IF, literally and figuratively) spells get more consistent and interesting upcasting options. So yeah you have to learn a bunch of 1st level spells but they are worth casting using 3rd level slots.


----------



## scottieboy86 (Dec 12, 2022)

I also have concerns. I didn't really notice it with the bard and ranger because I didn't understand that every class would have their spell slots limited by the number of spells they prepare. And with the new ritual casting rules, are spellbooks going to only be a liability? Maybe wizards will have greater ritual flexibility.

Also makes me concerned for sorcerer. Many of my players have chosen sorcerer over wizard and other casters over the years precisely because they don't have to prepare spells.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 12, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah the new version is in no ways simpler, quite the contrary. In the old one it was simple, I get X spells, pick what you want. Now you have to double check that you picked 4 1st and 2 2nd exactly, that's a lot more effort.
> 
> I think the new version is just bad. It makes you weaker at low levels, its less flexible, I think its actually more compex since you have to track more specifically...I don't see the appeal in the slightest.



"variant : for a gm who wants more powerful soellcssters you can choose to allow players to prepare as many spells as they have spell slots of any level.  This would allow a character with 4first level slots 3 second level slots & 1 third level slot to prepare 8 spells of any level they csn cast & can distort balance among your players though so gm's should choose to allow this only when they feel confident in being able to handle the results".

Players love anything that makes them more powerful and that makes this kind of optional a trivial but the other way around is much more difficult for a gm to push


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 12, 2022)

scottieboy86 said:


> I also have concerns. I didn't really notice it with the bard and ranger because I didn't understand that every class would have their spell slots limited by the number of spells they prepare. And with the new ritual casting rules, are spellbooks going to only be a liability? Maybe wizards will have greater ritual flexibility.
> 
> Also makes me concerned for sorcerer. Many of my players have chosen sorcerer over wizard and other casters over the years precisely because they don't have to prepare spells.



Wizard might wind up with a quantum spellbook where everything in it is always considered scribed & sorcerer could go back to extra slots 3.x style


----------



## Gadget (Dec 12, 2022)

I'm of two minds: it does seem to curtail high level casters a bit while giving lower level utility and ritual spells a boost, but I fear that higher level spells slots will gravitate to a very small number of 'mandatory' spells, with most others never seeing the light of day.  And given WOTC's penchant for high level spell balance...this does not sound ideal.  

On the other hand, maybe spell scaling will be tweaked to make it much more worthwhile.  The revised Spiritual Weapon gives a modicum of hope in that area.  If that first level prepared Magic Missile scaled really well--for example--you might not have as much of a need for some of the higher level spells you would normally prepare.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 12, 2022)

Tying the spells to slots on a per level basis is an absurd constraint that adds nothing of value and boils down to saving them a column for "total spells prepared" on the character level grid. It isn't making anything simpler; it is making things needlessly more stressful and complicated. It's needlessly bringing back a bit of old Vancian accounting without any reason or justification. It is the dumbest aspect of 5.5 revealed thus far by a country mile, and the only remote saving grace (the only reason I might even still bother with an addition that insists on that and so far adds so little of value) is that it is at least easy to houserule around.

I also take it as indicative of WotC's misguided belief that top level simplicity invariably equals accessibility. Yes it is fewer columns in a grid, but that doesn't make anything easier, any more than having one Arcane list than making Bards dig out their spells from it by school makes anything easier.

Fortunately I have a solution. I will simply mention in a survey that they could, potentially, base spells prepared on Proficiency Bonus somehow instead, and while I doubt anything else I said would even really be given a second thought I'm confident that WotC's mad infatuation with the PB means that any stray mention of a new way to use it will be the only thing discussed at WotC headquarters that day. The PHB could already be in production and they'd stop the presses.

I kind of like divorcing the spells you can prepare from ability score. Playing a caster with a mediocre casting stat is punishment enough without also limiting their spells prepared. But there's no reason that such a change should have anything to do with spell slots.


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 12, 2022)

Did they release the Wizard playtest already? I'm lost.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> Did they release the Wizard playtest already? I'm lost.



No, but we've had 2 play test docs with the revised spell prep rules.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 12, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> Did they release the Wizard playtest already? I'm lost.



They did not,  druid paladin & the entire mage group are future things.  All we can do is look at the expertgroup+cleric stuff & make assumptions.


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 12, 2022)

I strongly dislike it. The only thing that I can say in its favor, is that new players often get confused between slots and number of prepared spells, at least IME.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 12, 2022)

I was hoping we were moving away from spell prep in its entirety, but apparently it's going to be everywhere, like when you dog rolls in it's own leavings and runs through your house.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 12, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I didn't claim otherwise. I also don't think this playtest is actually a playtest so much as a marketing campaign.



Ugh. So just absurd cynicism based on nothing. Awesome.


----------



## glass (Dec 12, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s definitely easier. It just isn’t easier in a way that matters. Anyone who can play D&D can add (half for half casters) their level and their ability mod to see how many spells they can cast.
> 
> But yeah, “here’s a table that shows what spell levels you have the ability to cast, and how many you can cast. The number you can prepare is the same as the number of spell slots you have for that level”, is technically easier.



Looking up N numbers, where N is 1+, and choosing N sets of spells is easier than looking up one number (or just trivially calculating it) and choosing that number of spells? I don't think so.



Nikosandros said:


> I strongly dislike it. The only thing that I can say in its favor, is that new players often get confused between slots and number of prepared spells, at least IME.



And making the two (still independent) things use the same number is going to make it _less _confusing? Again, I don't think so.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 12, 2022)

Reynard said:


> On topic: it seems like an unnecessary change that has the net effect of reducing player choice in how they build their caster. To what benefit?




The benefit would be the restrictions.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 12, 2022)

glass said:


> Looking up N numbers, where N is 1+, and choosing N sets of spells is easier than looking up one number (or just trivially calculating it) and choosing that number of spells? I don't think so.



Yes. It’s easier. 


glass said:


> And making the two (still independent) things use the same number is going to make it _less _confusing?



Yes. They’re quite closely related. You can prepare 1 spell per number of spell slots. You now have 1 set of numbers. You literally just look at the Spellcasting page of your character sheet and see “3 first levels, 2 second levels,…” and you prepare those numbers of spells.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Dec 12, 2022)

I'd like spellcasting ability, or rather, Intelligence to have a role (should not be a dump stat for any caster!). "When you complete a long rest, you can change a number of your prepared spells equal to your Intelligence modifier."


----------



## FallenRX (Dec 12, 2022)

It just this weird half measure Vancian, it makes more sense if you actually just go back to Vancian tbh.


----------



## Krachek (Dec 12, 2022)

Spell casting even more easy. that is a good thing!


----------



## TheHand (Dec 13, 2022)

Yeah, going with the unpopular opinion (?) here and saying that I actually kind of like the change. Bonus points to me if it acts as a soft-nerf to high-level magic, which is one of the reasons a lot of D&D games I've played in tend to end campaigns around level 12. It also reminds me more of the good ol' days of true Vancian magic. 

I also think will be less confusing for beginners. Explaining how "spell slots" and "prepared spells" work has always been a challenge with a lot of new players I've gamed with. YMMV.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 13, 2022)

delericho said:


> For the benefit of those of us with no access to D&D Beyond, any chance of a summary of the change?



 Two of the casting classes we’ve seen were previously “spells known” casters, but are “prepared” casters in the UA, so it seems likely that they are considering switching all casters to be “prepared” casters. Additionally, instead of preparing a number of spells of any level equal to your level (or half your level for half-casters) plus the relevant casting ability modifier, you instead prepare a number of spells of each level equal to the number of spell slots you have of that level. So, for example, a 5th level bard always prepares 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells, and 2 third level spells. Additionally, so far we have not seen individual class spell lists. Clerics prepare spells from the Divine spell list, Bards prepare Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation spells from the Arcane spell list, and Rangers prepare non-Evocation spells from the Primal spell list. Cleric and Bard also each got a short list of spells that are always prepared for them (bards, for example, got lots of always-prepared healing spells, since healing is a bard thing I guess, and the Arcane spell list doesn’t have any of those).


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 13, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> I've been following the UAs and I didn't even realize the spell casting prep has changed. When did they change it?



In the expert classes packet. You’d need to have read the text of the spellcasting feature to have noticed the change, of course.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 13, 2022)

Personally, I don’t have much skin in this version of Vancian casting or that version. I just don’t really like Vancian casting in general, regardless of how you fiddle with the details of how a caster learns or prepares their Vancian spells. Let’s just make the change to spell points already.


----------



## TheHand (Dec 13, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Personally, I don’t have much skin in this version of Vancian casting or that version. I just don’t really like Vancian casting in general, regardless of how you fiddle with the details of how a caster learns or prepares their Vancian spells. Let’s just make the change to spell points already.



Honestly, Spell Points would save on a lot of headaches, and I've even played in D&D games where we successfully used Spell Points... but Vancian/pseudo-Vancian feels like one of those big sacred cows that they can't seem to sacrifice without much gnashing of the teeth, but for what it's worth, I'd be for it!


----------



## the Jester (Dec 13, 2022)

It feels like change for the sake of change to me. I don't think it addresses a real problem. Therefore, I think it's a slap in the face to backwards compatibility; therefore I think it's a bad change.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 13, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Tying the spells to slots on a per level basis is an absurd constraint that adds nothing of value and boils down to saving them a column for "total spells prepared" on the character level grid.




Just a nitpick: “total spells prepared” isn’t a thing on the class feature grid for casters who memorize, like clerics and wizards. Plus, it’s not a consistent number since it’s modified by caster stat bonus. So, that’s not the reasoning.

I think it might be in part a power balancing thing. It might also open up a bit of design space for “downcasting” spells. 

I also think it would be really interesting if this spell prep applied to all the classes that do do prep, *except* the wizard, who could keep the current 5e version. 

Also, this isn’t set in stone. It’s a playtest doc. Tell them you don’t like it, and if it gets less than that 70% (or whatever the number was) positive rating, then it won’t see the light of day.

For the record, I’m not a fan of the change either, but having played around 30 years with Vancian magic as part of the game, it’s not a dealbreaker if they keep it.


----------



## ECMO3 (Dec 13, 2022)

renbot said:


> I think it would be fine *IF *(and that's a big IF, literally and figuratively) spells get more consistent and interesting upcasting options. So yeah you have to learn a bunch of 1st level spells but they are worth casting using 3rd level slots.



I tend to think the other way.  There are tons of great 1st level spells but not many great 2nd or 4th level spells.


----------



## delericho (Dec 13, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Two of the casting classes we’ve seen were previously “spells known” casters, but are “prepared” casters in the UA, so it seems likely that they are considering switching all casters to be “prepared” casters. Additionally, instead of preparing a number of spells of any level equal to your level (or half your level for half-casters) plus the relevant casting ability modifier, you instead prepare a number of spells of each level equal to the number of spell slots you have of that level. So, for example, a 5th level bard always prepares 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells, and 2 third level spells. Additionally, so far we have not seen individual class spell lists. Clerics prepare spells from the Divine spell list, Bards prepare Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation spells from the Arcane spell list, and Rangers prepare non-Evocation spells from the Primal spell list. Cleric and Bard also each got a short list of spells that are always prepared for them (bards, for example, got lots of always-prepared healing spells, since healing is a bard thing I guess, and the Arcane spell list doesn’t have any of those).



Thanks for this.

Yeah, it sounds pretty terrible - there's not a single thing there that I would consider an improvement.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 13, 2022)

The spell point system that works well for 5e is as follows:

*Spell points = level + 1
Spell cost = spell level
All spell points refresh after each Short Rest*

For any full caster, spell points are that simple.

For example.

Level 5 Wizard has 6 spell points.
It costs 3 spell points to cast a Fireball.

It works really well, even for the highest spell levels.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 13, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Just a nitpick: “total spells prepared” isn’t a thing on the class feature grid for casters who memorize, like clerics and wizards. Plus, it’s not a consistent number since it’s modified by caster stat bonus. So, that’s not the reasoning.




I think I've ranted about this several times and neglected to clearly explain my argument this time.

My point was that, even deciding to use a flat level-based number of spells prepared (which I'm okay with), and even deciding to base it on spell slots (which is arbitrary but whatever), they could just as easily just make it a total number of spells you can prepare based on total spell slots and have a separate column for that. The part I hate is taking away flexibility in the number of spells of each level that can be prepared, and doing it for no good reason.

I suspect just saying you can apply your total spells prepared to whatever levels you want is going to be one of the most common 5.5 house rules (as it avoids the most obnoxious part of the new system without being wildly unbalanced), so I feel like WotC should just print a running total number of spells prepared.



Sir Brennen said:


> For the record, I’m not a fan of the change either, but having played around 30 years with Vancian magic as part of the game, it’s not a dealbreaker if they keep it.



I mean, I'd think it was dumb if they went back to retro-Vancian style, but I would prefer that to this system of arbitrarily just throwing a cumbersome pseudo-retro-Vancian restriction on top of the current neo-Vancian system for no good reason. There was at least a sliver of a ludonarrative to needing to memorize specific spells. There is no particular story of only being able to prepare x spells of each level based on spell slots for that level, but then being able to use them with those spell slots freely. It's just a game restriction for restriction's sake.

And it rises to dealbreaker for me at present because 5.5 has yet to produce a dealmaker for me.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 13, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Personally, I don’t have much skin in this version of Vancian casting or that version. I just don’t really like Vancian casting in general, regardless of how you fiddle with the details of how a caster learns or prepares their Vancian spells. Let’s just make the change to spell points already.



Everyone should use spell points and if they want to limit versatility of spellcasters, go with spells know of sorcerer for all, plus subclass spells known.

Keep Vancian relic in relic editions.


----------



## glass (Dec 13, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You literally just look at the Spellcasting page of your character sheet and see “3 first levels, 2 second levels,…” and you prepare those numbers of spells.



Whereas before "you literally just look at the Spellcasting page of your character sheet" and see one number, then prepare* that many spells. Once. Not up to nine times. Going through the same process nine times cannot be easier than doing it once.



FallenRX said:


> It just this weird half measure Vancian, it makes more sense if you actually just go back to Vancian tbh.



That would be a point in its favour in my book, but I suspect it would be a mistake on WotC's part.

(* It still annoys me that they chose to overload the term "prepare" rather than go with the established term "ready" for this kind of casting.)


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 13, 2022)

This is just going back to how it used to be in 3rd and earlier yeah? Casters had a set number of spells per level and you had to prep them in advance?


----------



## delericho (Dec 13, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> This is just going back to how it used to be in 3rd and earlier yeah? Casters had a set number of spells per level and you had to prep them in advance?



Unless something was missed, there is one key change: in 3e if you wanted to cast a particular spell twice, you had to prepare it twice.


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 13, 2022)

delericho said:


> Unless something was missed, there is one key change: in 3e if you wanted to cast a particular spell twice, you had to prepare it twice.



Gotcha - so it's like a slightly more flexible version of 3e and earlier spell prep. Thanks!


----------



## Reynard (Dec 13, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> In the expert classes packet. You’d need to have read the text of the spellcasting feature to have noticed the change, of course.



Read the rules?!? What are you, some sort of GM?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 13, 2022)

TheHand said:


> Honestly, Spell Points would save on a lot of headaches, and I've even played in D&D games where we successfully used Spell Points... but Vancian/pseudo-Vancian feels like one of those big sacred cows that they can't seem to sacrifice without much gnashing of the teeth, but for what it's worth, I'd be for it!



Spell points double down on the biggest caster problem: going nova and forcing a 5 minute work day. At least with slots the caster may have burnt their most powerful spells in the first room of the dungeon but they won't have completely drained themselves.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Spell points double down on the biggest caster problem: going nova and forcing a 5 minute work day. At least with slots the caster may have burnt their most powerful spells in the first room of the dungeon but they won't have completely drained themselves.



that could be a problem, but it is already limited to only one spell per long rest from levels 6-9. You can also house rule that before than you can only cast 3 spells of your highest level for spell levels 1-5.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 13, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Gotcha - so it's like a slightly more flexible version of 3e and earlier spell prep. Thanks!



more or less exactly like 3.5e sorcerer/bard.


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 13, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Gotcha - so it's like a slightly more flexible version of 3e and earlier spell prep. Thanks!



The playtest rules also retain from 5e the possibility of upcasting spells using higher level slots.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 13, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that could be a problem, but it is already limited to only one spell per long rest from levels 6-9. You can also house rule that before than you can only cast 3 spells of your highest level for spell levels 1-5.



I'm not sure I understand your reply. What I was saying was that spell points can be nova dumped in a way slots cannot. If you put rules in limiting how spell points can be spent, you've just created slots with extra steps.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure I understand your reply. What I was saying was that spell points can be nova dumped in a way slots cannot. If you put rules in limiting how spell points can be spent, you've just created slots with extra steps.



yes and no.

I agree that on 10th level, 9 5th level spells per day could be a problem, but I would not say that 32 1st level spells per day would be a problem.

that is why limit to highest levels spells is needed.


----------



## Baumi (Dec 13, 2022)

I like the new Version, it's very straight forward and should be much easier to explain players who are not used to playing casters.

Also you can now change cantrips too, which is a big plus in my book


----------



## Horwath (Dec 13, 2022)

Baumi said:


> I like the new Version, it's very straight forward and should be much easier to explain players who are not used to playing casters.
> 
> Also you can now change cantrips too, which is a big plus in my book



I don't know how it is easier to prepare 4 1st level spells, 3 2nd level spells, 3 3rd level spells, 3 4th level spells and 2 5th level spells vs. 15 spells from 1st to 5th level?

also, what is wrong with cantrips?


----------



## TheHand (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Spell points double down on the biggest caster problem: going nova and forcing a 5 minute work day. At least with slots the caster may have burnt their most powerful spells in the first room of the dungeon but they won't have completely drained themselves.



In the game I played in that used spell points, I think we were an outlier in that the mages were very miserly with their Spell Points (probably due to the DM only letting long rests happen in safe-havens). In a more normal game, you would need some serious tweaking of the numbers before I would be happy with the system; the DMG variant as it exists now definitely favors the scenario you describe. 

Long ago I once envisioned a system where your lowest level spells _gave_ you spell points, so you would have to 'build-up' your pool to get to the high level ones, but it was too much of a mess to really make work.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure I understand your reply. What I was saying was that spell points can be nova dumped in a way slots cannot. If you put rules in limiting how spell points can be spent, you've just created slots with extra steps.



To avoid an overwhelming nova, the solution is a lesser amount of spell points but refreshing per Short Rest.

That is one of the reasons why the caster level+1 spell points per Short Rest, works so well.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 13, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> To avoid an overwhelming nova, the solution is a lesser amount of spell points but refreshing per Short Rest.
> 
> That is one of the reasons why the caster level+1 spell points per Short Rest, works so well.



So the party will be short resting after every fight instead?


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> So the party will be short resting after every fight instead?



It is the same as what a Warlock does now.

The spell points per Short Rest also solves the problem of the "5-minute workday" sotospeak.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 13, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> It is the same as what a Warlock does now.



Yeah, from a GM perspective this frustrates me to no end. That's why I use a random encounter check every 30 minutes, per B/X.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Yeah, from a GM perspective this frustrates me to no end. That's why I use a random encounter check every 30 minutes, per B/X.



No problem.

Thats fair.

But notice, no one in 5e complains that the Warlock is an overpowered spellcaster.

The per Short Rest spell refresh helps balance out spellcasting, even at the highest levels.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 13, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> No problem.
> 
> Thats fair.
> 
> ...



Isn't that because the Warlock has like 2 spells?


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 13, 2022)

I guess I've been doing it this way since 5e came out. That's just the way I've read the rules. Also I haven't played as much I DM. I dunno.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Isn't that because the Warlock has like 2 spells?



The Warlock slots and the level+1 spell points are equivalent.

The amount of spell points being level+1 comes from the Warlock, except smoothing out the points per level, instead of lumps per slot.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 13, 2022)

glass said:


> Whereas before "you literally just look at the Spellcasting page of your character sheet" and see one number, then prepare* that many spells. Once. Not up to nine times. Going through the same process nine times cannot be easier than doing it once.



Except you had to weigh different spells levels and check that you’d actually be able to use all your slots well, whereas now you just prepare a certain set of spells per level. Having done both, and helped noobs do both, the new way is literally much faster and easier. 

You aren’t doing the same thing 9 times. You’re doing a different, easier, thing, once.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 13, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> I guess I've been doing it this way since 5e came out. That's just the way I've read the rules. Also I haven't played as much I DM. I dunno.



Every caster player I’ve DMed for has at least started out doing it that way. usually because they assume that’s the rule.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Spell points double down on the biggest caster problem: going nova and forcing a 5 minute work day. At least with slots the caster may have burnt their most powerful spells in the first room of the dungeon but they won't have completely drained themselves.



Spell points plus encounter based design. Fixed.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 13, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Gotcha - so it's like a slightly more flexible version of 3e and earlier spell prep. Thanks!



Just to be clear, there is no "slight" here. 5e's system is heads and shoulders more flexible than 3e, its honestly one of the biggest changes in the game. It completely changes how a wizard has to consider spell preparation.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 13, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Spell points plus encounter based design. Fixed.



Spell points aren't happening. You can blame gronards, blame the demands of backwards compatibility, blame whatever....its not happening. The best you could hope for is a later class like a psion getting it, but the core classes are not not going to change that radically.


----------



## Wyckedemus (Dec 13, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> To avoid an overwhelming nova, the solution is a lesser amount of spell points but refreshing per Short Rest.
> 
> That is one of the reasons why the caster level+1 spell points per Short Rest, works so well.



My concerns with spell points, especially recovering spell points on a short rest using your suggestion, is that casters are way more powerful all day. They no longer have to have a long rest to recover spells, ever. Long rests are only for recovering special class abilities and exhaustion. They get to do way more cool stuff more often as a caster than martial characters get to do. It seems to me that you would really have to change everything about martial characters to make them compete with spell points.

Let's say you're a 7th level caster. You have 8 spell points. You can cast eight 1st level spells every short rest. 

As a combat caster, you're never really going to run out of 1st level combat spells. Select the spells with the greatest impact. You want to attack with cantrips, and use your 1st level spells to cast up to 8 Shield spells per short rest? No prob. Wanna blast like crazy? 8 Guiding Bolts per short rest is a great way to go!
As a healing caster, you'll never run out of healing. Why take a long rest or even spend Hit Dice? Just cast 8 Cure Wounds, and take a short rest and do it again, then again. 
Or if you want to spellsling for more power, you can cast four 2nd level spells, or two 3rd level spells per short rest. With 3 short rests per day, that's twelve 2nd level spells, or six 3rd level spells and three 2nd level spells per day.
And what is to stop you from having 5 short rests per day in a dungeon environment, blasting 10 fireballs throughout the day? Just keep pushing. Clear an encounter area, shore up defenses for a short rest, recover all your spells, then push on to the next area. Lay a 24-hour siege where you never take a long rest until you clear out the dungeon. If you really need to, cast Leomund's Tiny Hut which you can return to as your siege base for short rests. Also, if you are advancing levels via XP, you advance way faster from day to day because you rarely need to stop.

Heck, at 7th level, the bard gets all their best abilities, like spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration, recharging on a short rest. They never really need to stop unless they get wrecked with Exhaustion.

Why play a warlock who only gets two 3rd level spells with no flexibility? I suppose you can make warlocks follow the same spell point rules, and take away one of the things that makes them unique.

I suppose the designers could add a gamist rule limiting short rests per day. But does that fit the narrative of all worlds as a core rule?

At the end of the day, I wouldn't use that short rest spell point system unless I wanted a very specific high magic story-driven, milestone-based campaign, like Strixhaven, and everyone had magic. That is why I think spell points should be an optional rule, which they are.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 13, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> You can blame gronards,



Already blame them for 5e, might as well for 5.5e.


----------



## glass (Dec 13, 2022)

Horwath said:


> more or less exactly like 3.5e sorcerer/bard.



3.5 sorcerers and bards are spells-known spontaneous, same as they are in 5e. That seems to be going away in 5.5 (for bards at least).



Reynard said:


> So the party will be short resting after every fight instead?



They _should_; that was the original purpose of short rests, before 5e made a mess of them.



doctorbadwolf said:


> You aren’t doing the same thing 9 times.



Look at a number, choose that many spells. Once in 5e, nine times in 5.5 if you are a 9-level caster.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Except you had to weigh different spells levels and check that you’d actually be able to use all your slots well, whereas now you just prepare a certain set of spells per level. Having done both, and helped noobs do both, the new way is literally much faster and easier.



In 5e, you could prepare spells such that you cannot use your lower level spells, so you're right that is something that you have to keep in mind. OTOH, if you do that, it sucks for a day and then you change them tomorrow, so it is not a huge concern. If it could be prevented without the massive fiddliness of the new version that would be great, but in this case the cure is much worse than the disease.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 13, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That presumes the ballots aren't already "in." I mean, EVERYTHING  scored high in the previous survey? Sus.



They've had 10 years of feedback and these are the earliest changes they're making with all that feedback and you think it's a secret conspiracy by WOTC to force changes people don't want for...reasons?


----------



## Krachek (Dec 13, 2022)

Giving prepared spells and access to full spell list is a net fun increase for players.
Preparing cantrip too, and that was started in Tasha for the Wizard.

Forcing to follow the spell slot to prepare spell is a nice counterpart. It will limit key high level spell which is a good thing.

For now spell casting is the best part of the playtest.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 13, 2022)

Wyckedemus said:


> My concerns with spell points, especially recovering spell points on a short rest using your suggestion, is that casters are way more powerful all day. They no longer have to have a long rest to recover spells, ever. Long rests are only for recovering special class abilities and exhaustion. They get to do way more cool stuff more often as a caster than martial characters get to do. It seems to me that you would really have to change everything about martial characters to make them compete with spell points.



As mentioned earlier, the level+1 points per Short Rest, roughly equals the Warlock.

No one thinks the Warlock is too powerful.



Wyckedemus said:


> Let's say you're a 7th level caster. You have 8 spell points. You can cast eight 1st level spells every short rest.



Sure, a level 7 caster can cast 8 level 1 spells before needing to find a 1-hour rest.

But then that means, no Fireball, no Fly, no Counterspell, etcetera.

How to spend the points is a fair tradeoff, and a tough dilemma.



Wyckedemus said:


> And what is to stop you from having 5 short rests per day in a dungeon environment, blasting 10 fireballs throughout the day?



5 short rests per day? In a dungeon environment? As a DM, I laugh at the naivete!

In my experience, players are likely to get 1 short rest per day. 2 rests if they are fortunate.

The problem with Short Rests is, when they need them the most (stuck in a dungeon crawling with hostiles) is when they are least likely to get them (because the hostiles leave no safespace and interrupt attempts to rest).

Oppositely, when they are camping out in the middle of nowhere and there is no one around to fight, they can have as many Short Rests as they want.



Wyckedemus said:


> Just keep pushing. Clear an encounter area, shore up defenses for a short rest, recover all your spells, then push on to the next area.



"Just"

Shore up defenses against intelligent hostiles who now know where the players are, and are sounding the alarm?



Wyckedemus said:


> Lay a 24-hour siege where you never take a long rest until you clear out the dungeon. If you really need to, cast Leomund's Tiny Hut which you can return to as your siege base for short rests.



Have you or your players never had your Hut surrounded by hundreds of monsters waiting for your spell to end?



Wyckedemus said:


> Also, if you are advancing levels via XP, you advance way faster from day to day because you rarely need to stop.



I dont use XP. I just count the number of encounters until the next level.



Wyckedemus said:


> Heck, at 7th level, the bard gets all their best abilities, like spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration, recharging on a short rest. They never really need to stop unless they get wrecked with Exhaustion.
> 
> Why play a warlock who only gets two 3rd level spells with no flexibility? I suppose you can make warlocks follow the same spell point rules, and take away one of the things that makes them unique.



The Warlock gets always on Invocations as well as spellcasting.



Wyckedemus said:


> I suppose the designers could add a gamist rule limiting short rests per day. But does that fit the narrative of all worlds as a core rule?



To be fair "slots" are the "gamist" rule that dont really make narrative sense.

Oppositely, having a certain amount of "energy" that runs out as one casts spells, is pretty much how most novels and films describe spellcasting.



Wyckedemus said:


> At the end of the day, I wouldn't use that short rest spell point system unless I wanted a very specific high magic story-driven, milestone-based campaign, like Strixhaven, and everyone had magic. That is why I think spell points should be an optional rule, which they are.



No one is complaining about the Warlock class.

The classes that people complain about are the traditional spell slot classes, especially Wizard.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 13, 2022)

delericho said:


> Unless something was missed, there is one key change: in 3e if you wanted to cast a particular spell twice, you had to prepare it twice.





Lojaan said:


> Gotcha - so it's like a slightly more flexible version of 3e and earlier spell prep. Thanks!



Didn’t you also get to prepare extra spells if you had a high casting stat (or maybe it was a high intelligence, regardless of casting stat)?


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 13, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Didn’t you also get to prepare extra spells if you had a high casting stat (or maybe it was a high intelligence, regardless of casting stat)?



Yes


Spoiler: Table 1-1 Bonus Spells




score(1-9): Can't cast spells tied to this ability
score(10-11): no bonus
score(12-13): 1x 1st
score(14-15):  1x1st 1x2nd
score(16-17): 1x1st 1x2nd 1x3rd
score(18-19): 1x1st 1x2nd 1x3rd 1x4th 
score(20-21): 2x1st 1x2nd 1x3rd 1x4th 1x5th 
score(22-23): 2x1st 2x2nd 1x3rd 1x4th 1x5th 1x6th 
score(24-25):2x1st 2x2nd 2x3rd 1x4th 1x5th 1x6th 1x7th 
score(26-27): 2x1st 2x2nd 2x3rd 2x4th 1x5th 1x6th 1x7th 1x8th 
score(28-29): 3x1st 2x2nd 2x3rd 2x4th 2x5th   1x6th 1x7th 1x8th 1x9th
score(30-31):  3x1st 3x2nd 2x3rd 2x4th 2x5th  1x6th 1x7th 1x8th 1x9th
it went to 44-45 before hitting an etc... but this is already beyond what weas realistically plausible for a PC tp get without punpun type silliness the GM needed to aid.  
_I may or may not have made typos above_




Back in 2e it did a lot of things that depended on edition differences like chance to learn spells/max # spells per spell level etc for wizards & high wisdom but priests with high wis _could_ get bonus spells among other things


----------



## glass (Dec 13, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Didn’t you also get to prepare extra spells if you had a high casting stat (or maybe it was a high intelligence, regardless of casting stat)?



In 3.5 and 3.0 it was whatever your casting stat was. In 2e (and presumably earlier) it was only your Wisdom, and only for Wisdom-based casters (although in those days they called it "memorising" rather than "preparing").


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 13, 2022)

I'm still reserving judgement until I see the rest of the classes, but right now I'm leaning towards keeping the current system. I need to know how the sorcerer and wizard are going to work to finalise what I want to do. I just hope that there are overrides in dndbeyond so that if i want to I can stick to the current system, otherwise I might start phasing that out dndbeyond once onednd releases and stick with buying only the books.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 13, 2022)

It's dumb.

The biggest problem with casters was never the top spells, it was the bottom spells. 

Being forced to prepare lower level spells that don't upgrade promotes Batman Wizardry. As what else will you do with multiple underdeveloped slots and spells you are forced to prepare a long them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2022)

glass said:


> In 5e, you could prepare spells such that you cannot use your lower level spells, so you're right that is something that you have to keep in mind. OTOH, if you do that, it sucks for a day and then you change them tomorrow, so it is not a huge concern. If it could be prevented without the massive fiddliness of the new version that would be great, but in this case the cure is much worse than the disease.



There is no “massive fiddliness”. “Prepare spells of each level you can cast, equal to your spell slots of each level” is not fiddly.

It’s dead simple.


----------



## ECMO3 (Dec 14, 2022)

Krachek said:


> Giving prepared spells and access to full spell list is a net fun increase for players.
> Preparing cantrip too, and that was started in Tasha for the Wizard.
> 
> Forcing to follow the spell slot to prepare spell is a nice counterpart. It will limit key high level spell which is a good thing.
> ...



 I will say often players make a bad pick, not realizing how it will go in play or it might be a great pick, just not with this specific group.  This isn't usually that bad on spells, because you always have other spells to spend slost on, but on cantrips it can be really bad.

Being able to prepare cantrips takes care of this and I like it as a change.  Maybe not on EKs and ATs, but all other casters that have cantrips should prepare them


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 14, 2022)

Krachek said:


> Giving prepared spells and access to full spell list is a net fun increase for players.



Giving prepared spells and access to full spell lists is a net fun increase for *some* players. Other players either like to have more thematic characters or dislike the extra faff that comes with being able to adjust your spells like that. One of the advantages of a class based system is you don't have to play one size fits all.

(That said respecs should be allowed, especially for new players).


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 14, 2022)

Krachek said:


> Giving prepared spells and access to full spell list is a net fun increase for players.



Not having to prep spells every day is its own reward. I would legit rather never play a caster again than play a prep caster.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 14, 2022)

I don't care about this change that much. Worse for optimizers, which I kind of like, but decreases player choice a bit, which I don't really like. A bit of a wash. I don't think it will be hugely consequential for most players.


----------



## Krachek (Dec 14, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Giving prepared spells and access to full spell lists is a net fun increase for *some* players. Other players either like to have more thematic characters or dislike the extra faff that comes with being able to adjust your spells like that. One of the advantages of a class based system is you don't have to play one size fits all.
> 
> (That said respecs should be allowed, especially for new players).



Ok, it will be to Wotc to satisfy the most of us.
But actual DnD have too much immunity and resistance to allow thematic spell caster to be effective without some adaptation tools.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 14, 2022)

Krachek said:


> Ok, it will be to Wotc to satisfy the most of us.
> But actual DnD have too much immunity and resistance to allow thematic spell caster to be effective without some adaptation tools.



The way WotC can satisfy the most of us is by having different classes work in different ways. Having _some_ prepared classes and _some_ fixed list classes. Which is the way it has been done (and not having this sort of variety was one of 4e's actual mistakes)

And 5e is very short of immunities to anything other than poison in my experience while 4e let the pyromancers burn through fire resistance.


----------



## Azzy (Dec 14, 2022)




----------



## cbwjm (Dec 14, 2022)

Azzy said:


> View attachment 269610



Wow, that's a blast from the past.


----------



## glass (Dec 14, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> There is no “massive fiddliness”. “Prepare spells of each level you can cast, equal to your spell slots of each level” is not fiddly.
> 
> It’s dead simple.



"Massive fiddliness" might have been slightly hyperbolic, but it certainly is fiddly beyond first level. At 1st level, the two cases are basically identical. The complexity of the 5e version is static. The complexity of the new version scales linearly with level. I do not understand how this is in any way controversial.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2022)

glass said:


> "Massive fiddliness" might have been slightly hyperbolic, but it certainly is fiddly beyond first level. At 1st level, the two cases are basically identical. The complexity of the 5e version is static. The complexity of the new version scales linearly with level. I do not understand how this is in any way controversial.



Because you’re white-rooming the supposed issue into something it isn’t. 

It literally just breaks down the process of choosing spells into level by level chunks, rather than a no-guidance pot, which is damn near objectively easier for the vast majority of people. 

Especially because the number for each level is literally already there. It’s the same as your number of spell slots.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 14, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> It literally just breaks down the process of choosing spells into level by level chunks, rather than a no-guidance pot, which is damn near objectively easier for the vast majority of people.
> 
> Especially because the number for each level is literally already there. It’s the same as your number of spell slots.



Yes, but that really only appears as an easier approach for players jumping into higher level characters. For players who started with 1st level in 5e, they're preparing 1+Wisbonus 1st level spells initially and then adding 1 per level. As they gain access to higher level spells they can opt to start preparing them too. The burden and the understanding grow organically and I have yet to find players who have had much difficulty with it.


----------



## glass (Dec 14, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Because you’re white-rooming the supposed issue into something it isn’t.



Yeah, I am "white rooming". So are you. The packet came out a couple of weeks ago, so neither of us could possibly have done extensive playtesting with it. _EDIT: But this is well past the point of being worth the effort. _


----------



## billd91 (Dec 14, 2022)

glass said:


> Yeah, I am "white rooming". So are you. The packet came out a couple of weeks ago, so neither of us could possibly have done extensive playtesting with it.



Honestly, considering the OneD&D play test version of prepping spells is very similar to prior editions, anyone who has played spell casters with both 3e and 5e isn't entirely white rooming this one.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Yes, but that really only appears as an easier approach for players jumping into higher level characters. For players who started with 1st level in 5e, they're preparing 1+Wisbonus 1st level spells initially and then adding 1 per level. As they gain access to higher level spells they can opt to start preparing them too. The burden and the understanding grow organically and I have yet to find players who have had much difficulty with it.



Well, what does “much difficulty mean”? 

Because I have seen players confused by it, and end up with the wrong number of prepared spells, or with no level 2 spells prepared, or way too-heavy with one or two low level spells and mostly high levels spells and then regret it on an adventuring day with no real opportunity to take a long rest. 

I have also seen many players assume that the UA rule was the phb rule, or do it that way even tho they didn’t have to, because it was easier for them. 


billd91 said:


> Honestly, considering the OneD&D play test version of prepping spells is very similar to prior editions, anyone who has played spell casters with both 3e and 5e isn't entirely white rooming this one.



Yeah definitely not white room, in my case. I know people in groups whose houserule is “you can prepare spells equal to your spell slots per long rest, and any remaining prepared spells can be of any level you can cast”, Nevermind the experiences I’ve already mentioned, and having people make 3rd level characters both ways to start a game.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 15, 2022)

Spell points are simple, intuitive, narratively sensical, and newbie-friendly.

Spell points work better as the default.

Spell slots can be a variant in the Dungeon Masters Guide.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 15, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Spell points are simple, intuitive, narratively sensical, and newbie-friendly.
> 
> Spell points work better as the default.
> 
> Spell slots can be a variant in the Dungeon Masters Guide.



Or we can go a few editions without it, and then introduce a new prepared casters that is significantly weaker than the main class because the designers think having slots is super crazy powerful.

Only then will the sorcerer have justice.


----------



## ECMO3 (Dec 15, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Because you’re white-rooming the supposed issue into something it isn’t.
> 
> It literally just breaks down the process of choosing spells into level by level chunks, rather than a no-guidance pot, which is damn near objectively easier for the vast majority of people.
> 
> Especially because the number for each level is literally already there. It’s the same as your number of spell slots.




The new way is much easier, especially on level up.  Previously on level up you got one more spell to prepare or if you are a half caster maybe one or maybe zero, unless you also got an ASI that level and then it was 2 .... or 1  ..... but then if it is an odd level you have higher level slots so you probably want to drip a lower level spell for a new higher level spell ..... so you got 5th level and you got 1 more spell to prepare, but you also want to drop magic missile, so that is 2 more third level spells to prepare now ..... oh and you got two more spells but you got those from feats so they don't count and this one is a prepared Wizard spell but this other one is a known Bard spell ..... and next week when you come back after a week off - wait I always have magic missile prepared, I must have screwed this up ....

I would say at least 20% of the time when as DM I looked at a mid-level casters sheet we found an error, sometimes we evem "found an error"
 that wasn't really an error.

 Of course that never, ever happened to me as a player ... and if it ever happened as a player I never would have quietly fixed it on my sheet without admitting it!


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 15, 2022)

When using the spell point system, one can have a number of spells whose total cost equals the total spell points plus the casting ability.

For example, a level 5 Wizard with 16 Intelligence has 9 points (6 +3 Intelligence). For spells, the player might prepare:

1 Mage Armor
1 Disguise Self
1 Shield
1 Arcane Lock
2 Suggestion
3 Fireball

The total cost equals the spell points plus the caster ability.

The Wizard can prepare different spells after a Rest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 15, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> The new way is much easier, especially on level up.  Previously on level up you got one more spell to prepare or if you are a half caster maybe one or maybe zero, unless you also got an ASI that level and then it was 2 .... or 1  ..... but then if it is an odd level you have higher level slots so you probably want to drip a lower level spell for a new higher level spell ..... so you got 5th level and you got 1 more spell to prepare, but you also want to drop magic missile, so that is 2 more third level spells to prepare now ..... oh and you got two more spells but you got those from feats so they don't count and this one is a prepared Wizard spell but this other one is a known Bard spell ..... and next week when you come back after a week off - wait I always have magic missile prepared, I must have screwed this up ....
> 
> I would say at least 20% of the time when as DM I looked at a mid-level casters sheet we found an error, sometimes we evem "found an error"
> that wasn't really an error.
> ...



Yeah I have seen a lot of that as well. I am honestly warming to the UA setup, other than I think you should have bonus prepared spells equal to you spellcasting mod or maybe PB.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 15, 2022)

The more I play D&D, and I played from '99,


Yaarel said:


> When using the spell point system, one can have a number of spells whose total cost equals the total spell points plus the casting ability.
> 
> For example, a level 5 Wizard with 16 Intelligence has 9 points (6 +3 Intelligence). For spells, the player might prepare:
> 
> ...



with this system, I would prepare 9 fireballs and all problems would be solved.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Dec 15, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> On one hand, it is a lot easier no more math and adding casting stat to your level, or half your level.
> 
> On the other hand I think this will make 13-stat caster dips a lot more viable which could be both good and bad.




I would like to keep the simplified number of spells, but I would like to see the language include the ability to prepare that number of spells of up to the level that you can cast, preserving the ability to prepare and potentially up cast more lower level spells. This of course assumes that up casting will still be a part of the game.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 15, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> When using the spell point system, one can have a number of spells whose total cost equals the total spell points plus the casting ability.
> 
> For example, a level 5 Wizard with 16 Intelligence has 9 points (6 +3 Intelligence). For spells, the player might prepare:
> 
> ...



The only thing I don’t like about this is it’s a nerf to the number of spells a wizard can have _prepared _compared to the current system. If I wanted clairvoyance (utility), dispel magic (defense) and fireball (offense), I’m _done_ under this system, whereas the current system I have six more spells I can prepare. Even the playtest slot system gives you more variety


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 16, 2022)

Dislike it. A lot.  The flexible spell selection was getting away from one of the irksome parts of AD&D-3.5e. 

The 5e system is flexible enough and simple enough that outside of a one-shot at a con (which should have pre-gens anyway), players learn it as they level. If you start a game at 5th level, the caster will only screw it up once.

I prefer having the bulk of spells in the 3rd-4th level zone, where up-casting has benefits and the impact per spell os good. Maybe 2-3 spells for each on the higher levels, as those spell slots are 1/day.

Plus I prefer the bard's semi-permanent spell selection. It eliminates session spell selection paralysis which has sucked the life out of soooooo many game sessions.  And the spell-swapping allowed you to "outgrow" spells.

Having 3 distinct flavors of full caster (short rest warlocks, semi-permanent spell list bard/sorceror, prepared spells wizard/cleric/druid) was a distinct benefit as it fits different play styles or concepts. 

We also lost the Ritual Caster.  The nerf of that feat is a big loss. It let your fighter learn how to prepare a Tiny Hut, the Rogue could cast Identify, and the Barbarian could Commune with Nature. It was a way to add a lot of flavor & flexibility without adding many direct-combat powers. Now it is just a perk for casters. Whomp-whomp.


----------



## Garmel (Dec 16, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> The playtest rules also retain from 5e the possibility of upcasting spells using higher level slots.




If we have Foresight as our 9th level spell that's prepared and we decide we that need a Fireball that is already prepared at 3rd level we can still upcast it to 9th level in this new system, right?


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 16, 2022)

Garmel said:


> If we have Foresight as our 9th level spell that's prepared and we decide we that need a Fireball that is already prepared at 3rd level we can still upcast it to 9th level in this new system, right?



Yes, because the slots are still independent from the prepared spells (even though they coincide in number per level).


----------



## Garmel (Dec 16, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Yes, because the slots are still independent from the prepared spells (even though they coincide in number per level).



Good. With the ability to upcast and now with many spells able to downcast we still have a lot of flexibility.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 16, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> The only thing I don’t like about this is it’s a nerf to the number of spells a wizard can have _prepared _compared to the current system. If I wanted clairvoyance (utility), dispel magic (defense) and fireball (offense), I’m _done_ under this system, whereas the current system I have six more spells I can prepare. Even the playtest slot system gives you more variety



I realize basing the number of prepared spells on the spell points per Short Rest, is a nerf to the number of spells prepared at any given time. But. It mainly impacts the higher tiers, where accessing fewer spells at any moment might help balance the casters, compared to noncasters. It might also speed up gameplay at the higher tiers, since there are fewer spells to comb thru during combat.

Meanwhile, rituals are still available without using spell points, as are auto-scaling cantrips. Plus, a Wizard can use a Rest to prepare different spells instead.

It is a nerf, but a gentle one that allows the player to finetune.

I suspect the access to fewer spells at any particular moment, will encourage a players "favorite spells" to remain in place, which will enhance the distinctive flavor of the spellcaster character, with certain spells frequently the go-to. Especially at the higher tiers.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 16, 2022)

Horwath said:


> The more I play D&D, and I played from '99,
> 
> with this system, I would prepare 9 fireballs and all problems would be solved.



You only need to prepare _Fireball_ once. If you choose to cast it twice at level 5, you will have no more spell points to cast any other spells until your next 1-hour rest.

Heh, not all encounters benefit best from _Fireball_.


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 17, 2022)

Yeah I gotta say, the way the UA is handling spells is the way I thought it was meant to be. My players have to, only because I didn't know I interpreted it wrong. I feel like a lot of these UA changes are changes to ways people have been playing it all along.


----------

