D&D 5E Another D&D Next Playtest Survey

TwinBahamut · Jul 19, 2012

All I can say is that I'm glad they gave so much room for writing comments, because I really needed it in order to talk about how much I didn't like the classic spell list. I wouldn't complain if the spell list was completely rewritten from the ground up.

This list was way too focused on the Cleric and Wizard and not focused enough on other classes, as well.

Kralin Thornberry · Jul 19, 2012

I also was perturbed by the 3.x centric spell list.

I did comment that I thought if there was a spell, it's opposite should be included automatically (i.e., knock and arcane lock).

Still very, very disappointed that they are bringing back the Vancian spellcasting system, even when their own polls showed that it was not what the majority wanted.

The Choice · Jul 19, 2012

My soul hurts

Well, that was... something?

Midway through that thing I almost stopped, and thought about erasing all of my well thought out comments and just writing in my favourite martial powers from 4th edition.

I get that they are trying to bring back "the lost folk" with this, but a lot of what was in that survey was opaque, obfuscated junk. Are we really going back to nine spell levels? Really? The most archaic notion in a game full of archaic notions is making a comeback? I can't wait to have to explain to new players how that works. I can't wait to tell them that their fighter should probably retire now that the cleric has divine power and word of recall. I can't wait for someone to say: "Hey! How come I get the same spells as the wizard? I'm a cleric, aren't I?

This really isn't going to end well. Either that or the survey company they contracted is absurdly bad at their presentation.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 19, 2012

I got sucked into details, due to the nature of the survey itself, and didn't think to give the comment that, upon reflection, fits my attitude about the exercise:

They could do a lot worse than to take the Rules Cyclopedia spell list as a starting point, cull the 20% of spells that are least popular and/or redundant (multiple cures across levels), and then replace them a similar number of the most popular spells from other editions. Do that, and mix in rituals, you'll have a decent base list to work from.

Remathilis · Jul 19, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
They could do a lot worse than to take the Rules Cyclopedia spell list as a starting point, cull the 20% of spells that are least popular and/or redundant (multiple cures across levels), and then replace them a similar number of the most popular spells from other editions. Do that, and mix in rituals, you'll have a decent base list to work from.

I actually worked through the list using my RC and clicking on every 3.5 spell that shared common origin. I filled in the rest with AD&D spells.

I agree that reversible spells should return, if for no other reason than to keep the spell-lists short. We don't need Cure and Inflict Wound spells separate for example. We could EASILY shrink both spell lists in half by reconnecting reversible spells and reunifying split-spells (such as symbol) again. It could even leave room for some of the cooler spells from later 3.5 and 4e.

GX.Sigma · Jul 19, 2012

The Choice said:
Well, that was... something?

Midway through that thing I almost stopped, and thought about erasing all of my well thought out comments and just writing in my favourite martial powers from 4th edition.

I get that they are trying to bring back "the lost folk" with this, but a lot of what was in that survey was opaque, obfuscated junk. Are we really going back to nine spell levels? Really? The most archaic notion in a game full of archaic notions is making a comeback? I can't wait to have to explain to new players how that works. I can't wait to tell them that their fighter should probably retire now that the cleric has divine power and word of recall. I can't wait for someone to say: "Hey! How come I get the same spells as the wizard? I'm a cleric, aren't I?

This really isn't going to end well. Either that or the survey company they contracted is absurdly bad at their presentation.

At the risk of sounding harsh:

The goal of D&D Next is to be the edition that everyone recognizes as D&D, regardless of which version is their favorite. That means making sure the iconic elements of the game are in it. One of those elements is D&D spellcasting, which had existed for 34 years (38 if you count Pathfinder, which many do).

Everyone who played D&D within those 34 years (i.e., nearly everyone who has played D&D) recognizes D&D spellcasting as an iconic element, and if the game doesn't include it, it won't feel like that same game to them. We have already seen this with 4th Edition, whose radical changes have led many to declare "it isn't D&D." Even though you are not one of those people, you must understand that 4th Edition is the clear outlier in the big picture, and that both tradition and popular demand mandate that D&D spellcasting is a "core" mechanic in D&D Next.

There will also be ways to play that do not include D&D spellcasting. There will be martial powers and non-daily spellcasters. They are trying to provide sets of options that will make everyone happy. It really doesn't help to complain that the default is not the one you would choose.

In other words: get over it.

TwinBahamut · Jul 19, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
At the risk of sounding harsh:

(snip)

In other words: get over it.

You bold 34 years like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't. Who cares if a mechanic is older than I am if the mechanic is still widely hated? You say that it is popular, but I've never seen any sign of that. The public polls that WotC held indicated the exact opposite, and I've never seen any gathering of D&D players that didn't have extremely divided opinions on the matter.

In my book tradition mandates that 5E should continue the path of evolution and continue the movement away from Vancian spellcasting that began with 3E splats and progressed with the 4E core. New D&D editions have never been regressive or slaves to tradition before, so why should they start now?

This probably isn't the best thread to hijack with this debate, though...

Agamon · Jul 19, 2012

I went with no ability buffs, no alignment in mechanics, didn't bother picking the reverse of spells and stuck more with the save or hurt/suck rather than save or die. Didn't get to 10 picks on most levels.

Agamon · Jul 19, 2012

TwinBahamut said:
This probably isn't the best thread to hijack with this debate, though...

This much is true.

Lanefan · Jul 19, 2012

Not only were the spell lists and names very 3e-centric but the levels of various spells were out of whack as well. Since when was Stinking Cloud 3rd level, or Spider Climb 2nd?

To get all the iconic magic-user spells in at some levels I had to leave out some iconic illusionist spells...

My guess is that the initial release of 5e is only going to have about 10 spells available per class per level, and this is the opening salvo in determining what those ten will be.

Lanefan