D&D 5E Why are we still stuck with divine casters knowing all spells?

[Stormonu]

I'd like individual divine spellcasters have a list of no more than 12 spells per level (preferably 8, actually). Probably something handled via a spheres or domain setup. With a handful of spells (say 4-5 per spell level) being "generic" spells available to all casters (say, all cure/inflict spells). If you want to add in a spell from another book, the caster needs to swap out a spell from the "core" list.

The only issue becomes players not only having to search through the spell list, but also seeing if that spell is in their domain. It puts more emphasis on having "the right domains", and therefore choosing (or making) a god who gives you the right domains for the spell list you want to be able to use. 2E had this issue, and I remember as a DM that some of the domains my made-up gods ended with gave them some horrible spell lists for players.

 

[gyor]

I'm fine with the way it works now.

Also we don't know how future splat books will work or what they'll contain.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The limited feature of spheres, from 2E, was that everyone angled for at least minor access to Healing because they were a cleric, and so many useful spells were in that sphere. Aside from that, the principle was good.

So how about we have spheres, but we allow the casting of non-sphere spells via ritual only? I forget how rituals work at the moment but I would hope it doesn't involve preparation.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I also support the return of Spheres, with a universal sphere that anyone can access. That universal sphere would include Cure Wounds.

Either that, or a Positive Energy and Negative Energy sphere, which is decided through alignment.

 

[BRW Games]

I wouldn't mind seeing a 2E-ish use of spell spheres, either. You could certainly have spheres based on deity portfolio as well as a more universal alignment-based sphere at the same time. They would hardly be mutually exclusive.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Why? Because if it's not broken, don't fix it.

That said, I do like the idea of differentiating clerics of various gods with spell choice. Each god should have sets of spells that are forbidden, weakened, normal, and augmented.

 

[Li Shenron]

If no one in the party knows Remove Curse, you shouldn't be 100% boned.

Sounds good in principle, but for my personal taste it's far from the best. Sometimes you should be boned. Because if you have no Remove Curse, this forces both the players and the DM to be more creative. If you have no "reset" button to easily remove the penalty on next morning, you have to find another way to remove it, it's the same principle as not having a Rogue able to pick a lock, if at this kind of difficulty the group's reaction is "let's give someone else lockpicking for free" then it yields a low-creativity game. Of course in case of a curse it might be difficult for the players to find an alternative on their own initiative, and that's where the DM has to be more creative.

It goes without saying, that a low-creativity game is just as legitimate. It's a totally valid gamestyle to have a "reset button" for everything bad that can happen to the PCs, and call it "Cleric". This happens in a lot of other games, for example in World of Warcraft time heals everything (which is the same thing as waiting for next morning for the Cleric to prepare the needed spell, if he knows all of them for sure), and it works fine. My favourite gamestyle is more similar to Baldur's Gate, where some things sometimes cannot be healed with a spell but with a trick, a specific cure, or even a whole quest now and then.

My point is however, that if Clerics and Druids automatically know all spells, there is no choice, the "next morning heals everything" is what happens most of the time. While on the other hand, give all Clerics something like 4 spells known per class level*, and if you want the "next morning heals everything" you can have it just by choosing Remove Curse and a few more spells of that type.

*4 per class level... it's still a lot of spells (about four times a Wizard, or twice an Academic Wizard), but it doesn't carry the problem with splatbooks, and it doesn't overwhelm casual players with too much too choose from. You see, the problem I have is not so much with how many spells are known, but rather with the fact that they are ALL by default. It is also a matter of equity among classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why? Because if it's not broken, don't fix it.

It is broken, or at least it becomes so in a game where splatbooks are allowed... have you never seen a CODzilla before?

 

[Blackbrrd]

Why? Because if it's not broken, don't fix it.

That proverb doesn't really fit the 3e cleric now does it? It's broken as hell from a balance point of view which probably why we got this discussion.

The way it got done in AD&D (2nd edition?) where you get access to two spheres* and the all sphere worked out pretty well. It also makes it a bit less daunting for a new player and a bit less over powered for a seasoned player.

My last 3.5e character was a character with 17 casting levels of cleric spells. Together with his good melee combat abilities, he had a biiiiiig toolbox of spells for just about every occation. Easily the most verstatile class in the party and at the same time one of the most powerful ones. I don't think we need a repeat of this broken version of the cleric.

*Ok, not really right, it's some mix of minor/major access to different spheres, I read up on the rules now, but it still wasn't entirely clear to me.

 

[Blackbrrd]

It is broken, or at least it becomes so in a game where splatbooks are allowed... have you never seen a CODzilla before?

You ninja!