Ruin Explorer
Legend
I think that's pretty much unarguable, yes.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.
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.
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 may not add up to much yet but the overall direction seems to be towards higher barriers to entry everywhere I look.
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.