D&D (2024) There needs to be a 4th spell list.

[Neonchameleon]

The question is though... is your current argument for making Rangers go back to having Known Spells actually going to convince enough people to respond to the survey in the same way?

I hope so. I hope pointing out how this version of the ranger:

1. Appears to be a spell-wielding hedge wizard rather than anything that is commonly understood as a ranger
2. Makes individual rangers far more cookie cutter
3. Makes rangers harder to play and far less newbie-friendly because they spend much more time faffing with spells

will be enough.

In fact the only ranger support I've seen is from people who have been playing D&D for years and think that the ranger archetype should only be based on D&D rangers. I think the support of this version of the ranger will be incredibly niche.

Cause you're going to need to reduce the number of people who either like the change or don't find it in any way a hardship down to probably less than 75% for WotC to consider rolling things back. And at least in my case... your reasons have not made me think it's a bad idea or even consider scoring the survey poorly. You haven't made a convincing case in my opinion. And why do I argue with people who make what I consider poor arguments? Because we're on a message board and it's fun to talk about these things.

Right back atcha. There is only one even vaguely good reason I've seen anyone offer for this change (and that's @Ruin Explorer pointing out newbies can get locked with bad spells - but I don't consider that a great reason). But I suppose if you consider your arguments even passable no wonder you don't like mine.

But so be it. I'm also just one dude amongst the thousands of people who are going to respond. So if you think your arguments have been sufficient, then best of luck when the survey comes around! Maybe you've done a good enough job after all. We'll just have to wait and see.

Indeed. We will see.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is only one even vaguely good reason I've seen anyone offer for this change (and that's @Ruin Explorer pointing out newbies can get locked with bad spells - but I don't consider that a great reason).

I don't think it's "great" reason either, to be clear. But I do think it is THE reason they're moving everyone to prepared, rather than everyone to known. Both simplify the game in different ways.

Prepared offers:
1) Avoids you getting locked into spells you don't like (which is not quite the same as bad spells - it's worst when they're also bad).
2) Lets you try out spells and use more seemingly "corner-case" spells because you don't have to think "will I be using this in X levels?".
3) Lets you flex your spell loadout for specific situations. I agree with people saying "but this doesn't happen this often", but I've played tons of Druids, and it absolutely does happen.

Prepared also arguably makes the game easier to balance from a developer-side perspective, because you can have spells with narrower use cases and know they won't be basically ignored and thus essentially irrelevant/a waste of space.

Known offers:
1) A sense of personality/individuality to your spell list.
2) Less burden on the player to know what their current spells do - they pretty much always know what they can do.
3) No need regularly evaluate currently prepared spells, no potential pressure from other players to do so.

If everyone used known the designers could also re-evaluate the spell list and just remove any spells which were too narrow in usage and/or combine them with other spells and/or broaden them out, which might simplify the game somewhat.

I will say, however, we needed easier, official, built-in ways to change Cantrips particularly. The biggest "I screwed myself" stuff I've seen with known spells has been largely Cantrips.

I do think "picking a lane" here is better than the 3E/5E situation though, I will say.

 

[DEFCON 1]

@Ruin Explorer I think you have made a really good summation here about the differences, and will make it easy for people to see what side of the wall they fall on. Great work!

And your list makes it even clearer to me exactly why the argument for Known Spells falters for me, because I myself believe only #2 to be a real issue. In #1s case I'm a believer that personality and individuality comes out of roleplaying and how you play the personality of the character and not game mechanics used to represent it... and for #3 that if you are at a table where players CAN pressure you to play your PC in ways you don't want... you should get away from those toxic players as quickly as possible and the game would be doing you no favors in putting in rules to just try to and reduce their toxicity to you. If you play with jerks... wanting rules in the game just so the jerks don't hurt you as much is not a great look and isn't something I think WotC should be doing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And your list makes it even clearer to me exactly why the argument for Known Spells falters for me, because I myself believe only #2 to be a real issue. In #1s case I'm a believer that personality and individuality comes out of roleplaying and how you play the personality of the character and not game mechanics used to represent it...

And at that point I wonder why you bother with complex mechanics unless you're deliberately playing an oversized boardgame.

Your personality should work in harmony with your mechanics and not against them.

and for #3 that if you are at a table where players CAN pressure you to play your PC in ways you don't want... you should get away from those toxic players as quickly as possible and the game would be doing you no favors in putting in rules to just try to and reduce their toxicity to you. If you play with jerks... wanting rules in the game just so the jerks don't hurt you as much is not a great look and isn't something I think WotC should be doing.

And if you're using "I'm just playing my character" as an excuse when you screw over the rest of the party then please leave. You are the one being a jerk.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

and for #3 that if you are at a table where players CAN pressure you to play your PC in ways you don't want... you should get away from those toxic players as quickly as possible and the game would be doing you no favors in putting in rules to just try to and reduce their toxicity to you. If you play with jerks... wanting rules in the game just so the jerks don't hurt you as much is not a great look and isn't something I think WotC should be doing.

I mean, I'm not trying to be rude, but I think it's representative of a real problem with discussion online that you immediately leap to talking about "jerks" and "toxic" here. And not just because Britney starts up in my head every time I read that word

Players "pressuring" you aren't necessarily being jerks or toxic. They may well not even be conscious that they're doing it. Very often they're perfectly nice people who just want a situation in the game to go well.

The typical conflict I've seen in games involves zero jerks, and looks more like this:

Player A: < is selecting spells >
Player B: "Oh we might fight X, maybe you should memorize [spell which would help significantly if that is correct]?"
Player A: "I don't like that spell, I've picked these, they'll be great!"
Player B: "Oh okay, um... cool"

Or

Player B: "Can you cast [insert cool buff or similar] on me? That's an awesome spell!"
Player A: "Nah, I didn't memorize it this time, I have [spell I probably won't cast/obvious junk spell]! It sounds cool!
Player B: "Roger, it's a cool spell though!"

And obviously it emerges that the player memorizing the spells screwed up in a sense, because that spell would have made a big difference, and whilst there aren't recriminations, there is a vague sense that the player is maybe a bit of a ditz and their PC maybe a bit useless. Often this is quite ongoing because the player picking spells is just a bit quixotic in their spell selection period.

But this hits "Known" spells to in a slightly different way. The same quixotic players (who are often extremely pleasant to game with because they're fun people and often good RPers) are the people most likely to end up with a Known spell selection that

If it's at jerk levels you have something that looks more like 2E:

Player A: < is selecting spells >
Player B: "Okay Cleric, we need you to memorize X, Y and Z [all heals/cures] and retain your spell slots to use those!"
Player A: "But I'd rather memorize these other things, we do have healing via [whatever]!"
Player B: "Well if you're not a team player... I guess you can do what you want..." (or worse)

And if you're using "I'm just playing my character" as an excuse when you screw over the rest of the party then please leave. You are the one being a jerk.

Hmmmmmm.

That can definitely go either way, because what is "screwing over the rest of the party", exactly? Seems vague as heck. Like

1) Rogue steals the loot from the other PCs and runs off, uses excuse "I'm just playing my character!", sure both player AND PC are jerks.

But

2) Cleric chooses spells she thinks are a good idea (and which may or may not, in fact, be a good idea!), and also says "It's what my character would pick and I don't think they're useless!", but X other party members want her to memorize just heals/cures/etc, and think she's being a jerk for failing to do. I would suggest it is in fact they who are being jerks in most cases. You want to control what the Cleric memorizes? Play a Cleric.

Then there's the more confusing:

3) Wizard picks a bunch of obviously-not-great to near-useless spells that the player knows perfectly well are pretty crap. All of this, unfortunately, matches well with the personality/style of the character, are they being a jerk? What if other players ask them to take more sensible spells?

I've seen all of these, none are theoretical. In the last case, I've seen it more than once, but with Known spells (a Sorcerer), no-one bothered them about it because they knew it couldn't be changed, and eventually people just got used to it and confirmation bias kicked in and we only remember the times those spells worked out, which, like, wasn't often, but hilarious when it did.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmmmmmm.

That can definitely go either way, because what is "screwing over the rest of the party", exactly? Seems vague as heck. Like

1) Rogue steals the loot from the other PCs and runs off, uses excuse "I'm just playing my character!", sure both player AND PC are jerks.

But

2) Cleric chooses spells she thinks are a good idea (and which may or may not, in fact, be a good idea!), and also says "It's what my character would pick and I don't think they're useless!", but X other party members want her to memorize just heals/cures/etc, and think she's being a jerk for failing to do. I would suggest it is in fact they who are being jerks in most cases. You want to control what the Cleric memorizes? Play a Cleric.

Then there's the more confusing:

3) Wizard picks a bunch of obviously-not-great to near-useless spells that the player knows perfectly well are pretty crap. All of this, unfortunately, matches well with the personality/style of the character, are they being a jerk? What if other players ask them to take more sensible spells?

I've seen all of these, none are theoretical. In the last case, I've seen it more than once, but with Known spells (a Sorcerer), no-one bothered them about it because they knew it couldn't be changed, and eventually people just got used to it and confirmation bias kicked in and we only remember the times those spells worked out, which, like, wasn't often, but hilarious when it did.

I've given an example slightly earlier in the thread using specifically in character choices that were accessible. The one I used was not preparing Water Walking one morning when:

1. You're a Spells Prepared caster with Water Walking on your spell list. Therefore you can prepare Water Walking.
2. You have looked at a map and know that you need to make it across a mile of open water under at least time pressure, and have no other obvious way across. Therefore Water Walking is significantly useful to your party.

If you were a Spells Known caster you wouldn't be playing a jerk because changing your spells on the fly is not something you can do. It's an out of character choice you have to live with.

I'd further disagree with @DEFCON 1 and say that teamwork involves talking through your plans and working together. It's also something you should do in character. And not wanting to die is not a jerk motiviation. Meanwhile "I don't care how we work together and save each others' lives" is being a jerk. Therefore not discussing in character how to work together better is being a jerk with suicidal tendencies. You are playing someone who knows their life is on the line and the things protecting it are your party members.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd further disagree with @DEFCON 1 and say that teamwork involves talking through your plans and working together.

I generally agree but I think in the real-world of role-playing that isn't always as smooth or simple as you're apparently suggesting.

And not wanting to die is not a jerk motiviation.

It absolutely can be if you push it hard enough. Being a jerk or not is about how you approach things. If you just won't shut up about something, even if it is the smart thing in your view, you are being a jerk. There is a limit, even when you're "right".

Meanwhile "I don't care how we work together and save each others' lives" is being a jerk.

That's just hyperbole that adds nothing to this discussion imho esp. the stuff about "suicidal tendencies". You're seemingly setting a false dichotomy where you're either 100% a team player who always memorizes what the team needs and casts what the team needs, or you're a nihilistic loser who doesn't care if anyone lives or dies. Come on.

I'd also make a distinction between PCs at the start of a campaign and during a campaign. Obviously, if there's a PC who actually is a nihilistic loser and it isn't that sort of game (i.e. it's not a game about team-play, and D&D is a game about team-play to some extent, though less than you seem to be suggesting imho), the DM should probably be saying "Yo that character concept doesn't work". Like, get rid of angry loners and the like at the session 0 phase.

If you're like, ten sessions in and there's a dude who just doesn't like to memorize utility spells, and that's been well-established (including in-character), he's not a "jerk" for continuing with that thread. There are at least two legitimate ways to RP that with the slightly far-fetched water-walking situation (sounds like a lot of good info and time to rest for a "time pressure" situation lol but not impossible), one being that he grows as a person and memorizes this spell even though it annoys the PC in character, the other being that he just won't do it, and so you have to work out a different way to deal with the challenge, like getting some pontoon boats or something.

My view is that if you really need to be in charge of whether X thing happens, pick a PC who can do X thing (I live my truth here to be clear, that's why I end up playing Bards and Druids mostly lol). Don't pick a bloody Fighter and start trying to arrange the spells of the casters for them lol. In most ways casters, especially full-casters are advantaged over other PCs, but not this. By all means discuss it, but if you don't get your way, they aren't a jerk just for not agreeing, and you shouldn't become a jerk by continuing to push the issue.

And let's be real - most of the time in D&D, if a caster can memorize a spell to totally "own" a situation, they will LEAP at the chance, and shove other PCs out of the way to do it! To the point where casters often just invalidate skill-users. I mean, you could well have a PC who has appropriate skills/tools to move a boat/raft faster over that water, but yeah, Water Walk just means that stuff he has is pointless, because Water Walk is really simple and works 100% of the time with zero effort beyond the spell slot.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is a very interesting conversation and it does make me think about it. I will freely admit that my gaming only involves playing with friends and those players we have all cultivated together wherein we know and are comfortable with each others preferences in play. I have done my best to make sure I don't play with others who have expectations that are too disparate from mine. So perhaps I am too privileged to have a more realistic understanding of what others are going through. It could also perhaps be an age thing... where I am just too old to suffer fools gladly and am quite comfortable kicking them to the curb should they consistently behave it a way that I find ridiculous or uncomfortable.

So the idea that ANY player would make a request of another player to do something that they do not already know the player is happy to do is just an anathema to me. Am I going too far by saying that requesting player is "toxic"? Yeah, I will concede that. That most likely is not nearly the level the issue is at. But at the same time I still find it to be in tremendous bad form.

Would we expect a player to be able to recommend or push a fellow player take X, Y and Z spells at level-up and not think they were being awfully presumptuous (especially if they got seemingly irritated that the player did not follow along?) Of course not. We would probably recommend that player stay in their lane. So the idea that that type of player could make recommendations about what a fellow player should Prepare in the morning is also as presumptuous and I don't think should be given any credence-- even if the player had the best interests in the game or the party at heart. They might not be a "toxic" player... but the attitude can lead down the road towards it.

And this is especially true if the second player even told the group before the game started "Oh by the way... these 2024 updated books made Rangers Prepared spellcasters but I think that rule change kinda sucked. So for this campaign I'm going to play this character as though he was a 2014 Ranger and only use Known spells. So I won't be able to change them out every morning." If you say that and someone else in the group STILL tries to get you to swap out spells because "the book says you can"...? That's even worse.

But again... I say that coming from my position wherein I can tell that kind of player to keep their so-called "helpful" comments to themself. If other people don't find themselves in that position and thus just would like the book to do the heavy lifting for them? Fine. I understand. I still think that player needs to find a new group regardless, because if it ain't this one rule it's going to be another where there's going to end up being an issue... but that's not for me to say.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I've seen all of these, none are theoretical. In the last case, I've seen it more than once, but with Known spells (a Sorcerer), no-one bothered them about it because they knew it couldn't be changed, and eventually people just got used to it and confirmation bias kicked in and we only remember the times those spells worked out, which, like, wasn't often, but hilarious when it did.

So this last Summer I had a Wizard character who took Mold Earth as one of his cantrips, because at the start of the campaign he was a civilian specialist attached to a military unit, and it seemed thematic (and an interesting change of pace) to be able to dig trenches magically. It saw some memorable use, but wasn't particularly vital. Eventually I used the Tasha's feature for Wizards to trade out cantrips and replaced it with Mind Sliver, which would almost certainly be the higher rated cantrip on most people's lists.

And the result was disappointment from the group, because from time to time, remembering occasions when I had done memorable magical digging, they would come up with some scheme that involved me doing it again and I didn't have that tool in my toolbox anymore (well, actually some days I did, but never the right ones it seemed). Meanwhile I don't think my having a second attack cantrip, somewhat more optimal in many situations, registered with them at all.

So one thing that can be said for memorized casters is that, regardless of "pressuring" by the group, the group knows your capabilities a lot better and gets to participate in your magic in a way they don't when you are preparing different spells everyday and they don't know what you can do. Sometimes they'd rather have a less powerful but more consistent companion.

The problem with 5e memorized casters is that they should have gotten a few more spells to compensate for their lack of versatility and to make a few RP oriented choices possible while still taking the usual gang of top tier spells. Instead they got fewer spells than the prepared casters and no versatility.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So this last Summer I had a Wizard character who took Mold Earth as one of his cantrips, because at the start of the campaign he was a civilian specialist attached to a military unit, and it seemed thematic (and an interesting change of pace) to be able to dig trenches magically. It saw some memorable use, but wasn't particularly vital. Eventually I used the Tasha's feature for Wizards to trade out cantrips and replaced it with Mind Sliver, which would almost certainly be the higher rated cantrip on most people's lists.

And the result was disappointment from the group, because from time to time, remembering occasions when I had done memorable magical digging, they would come up with some scheme that involved me doing it again and I didn't have that tool in my toolbox anymore (well, actually some days I did, but never the right ones it seemed). Meanwhile I don't think my having a second attack cantrip, somewhat more optimal in many situations, registered with them at all.

So one thing that can be said for memorized casters is that, regardless of "pressuring" by the group, the group knows your capabilities a lot better and gets to participate in your magic in a way they don't when you are preparing different spells everyday and they don't know what you can do. Sometimes they'd rather have a less powerful but more consistent companion.

The problem with 5e memorized casters is that they should have gotten a few more spells to compensate for their lack of versatility and to make a few RP oriented choices possible while still taking the usual gang of top tier spells. Instead they got fewer spells than the prepared casters and no versatility.

I think this os an argument for not allowing the inlearning of spells.

I think the best way is the wizard's way of preperation. You can learn spells, so you have consistency, but you can swap them out for flexibility. Then I'd like to have an ability to swap out spells on the fly.

For known casters, I think instead of unlearning spells, you should be able to "retire" them, and then you should have a limited ability to tap into this resource a few times per day. If you don't want to retire a spell, you should just add a new spell of a lower level to the retired list.

This way, you have a limited amount of flexibility for balance concerns and a certain amount of consostancy and adaptability.

Edit:
During the playtest there was another way for the ranger to have flexible casting: you coul leave a slot open and prepare it in 1min/spell level when you need it. We really liked that rule.