Amrûnril
Adventurer
The One D&D playtest puts forward shared Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists as replacements for unique class-based lists. I think this is a change with significant costs. Unique spell lists are arguably the biggest factor distinguishing spellcasting classes from one another, so removing them from all but three classes* will make the remaining classes less distinctive and their spell options less flavorful. Given these costs, it’s important to consider whether the benefits of the change are worth it. Yet the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that none of the purported benefits of shared spell lists hold up to serious scrutiny.
The main arguments in favor of shared spell lists seem to revolve around future-proofing, or forwards compatibility. But I don’t think shared spell list actually an improvement in this regard. Xanathar’s and Tasha’s have added both new spells and a new spellcasting class without unique spell lists being an issue. While looking through multiple indices for spells is a pain, this is a consequence of having spells in multiple sourcebooks, not of having them on lists labeled as “Cleric” and “Wizard” instead of “Divine” and “Arcane”. And checking a spell list labeled “Bard” is actually easier than opening the “Arcane” list and having to check the school notation next to each spell**.
As for feats, subclasses, magic items and the like, an ability that references the Arcane spell list is no more future-proofed than one that references the Wizard spell list. In either case future spells will be added or not added to the relevant list as flavor and balance dictate, and the ability’s reference to that list will remain valid. In the rare cases where a reference to a new class’s list would be appropriate (the developers’ preferred example is the Magic Initiate feat), a new version of the ability in question may actually have its own benefits: the Artificer Initiate feat’s substitution of tool proficiency for one of the cantrips make it better at capturing the flavor of a character dabbling in Artificer magic than an updated Magic Initiate feat would have been. And of course, writing the original ability with an open-ended list of class options would also have been a possibility.
It’s hard to see the new system as being more elegant either, given the ad-hoc adjustments needed to return the Bard to some semblance of its former function. There may be a flavor benefit in some settings, but since some spells are on multiple lists, it seems like it would make more sense to attach that flavor to the caster than to the spell. I suppose the reduced number of spell lists would save 3 or 4 pages in the PHB, but I really can't see a benefit beyond that.
*Whatever the changes in nomenclature, the Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists are still fundamentally class-based lists, built around the types of spells Wizards, Clerics and Druids have traditionally been able to use in D&D.
**It also seems odd for the developers to focus on this sort of concern given their emphasis elsewhere on digital tools which, if well constructed, should be able to seamlessly blend spells and spell lists from multiple sourcebooks. And even for analog players, it shouldn't be difficult to provide merged spell lists as printable documents.
The main arguments in favor of shared spell lists seem to revolve around future-proofing, or forwards compatibility. But I don’t think shared spell list actually an improvement in this regard. Xanathar’s and Tasha’s have added both new spells and a new spellcasting class without unique spell lists being an issue. While looking through multiple indices for spells is a pain, this is a consequence of having spells in multiple sourcebooks, not of having them on lists labeled as “Cleric” and “Wizard” instead of “Divine” and “Arcane”. And checking a spell list labeled “Bard” is actually easier than opening the “Arcane” list and having to check the school notation next to each spell**.
As for feats, subclasses, magic items and the like, an ability that references the Arcane spell list is no more future-proofed than one that references the Wizard spell list. In either case future spells will be added or not added to the relevant list as flavor and balance dictate, and the ability’s reference to that list will remain valid. In the rare cases where a reference to a new class’s list would be appropriate (the developers’ preferred example is the Magic Initiate feat), a new version of the ability in question may actually have its own benefits: the Artificer Initiate feat’s substitution of tool proficiency for one of the cantrips make it better at capturing the flavor of a character dabbling in Artificer magic than an updated Magic Initiate feat would have been. And of course, writing the original ability with an open-ended list of class options would also have been a possibility.
It’s hard to see the new system as being more elegant either, given the ad-hoc adjustments needed to return the Bard to some semblance of its former function. There may be a flavor benefit in some settings, but since some spells are on multiple lists, it seems like it would make more sense to attach that flavor to the caster than to the spell. I suppose the reduced number of spell lists would save 3 or 4 pages in the PHB, but I really can't see a benefit beyond that.
*Whatever the changes in nomenclature, the Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists are still fundamentally class-based lists, built around the types of spells Wizards, Clerics and Druids have traditionally been able to use in D&D.
**It also seems odd for the developers to focus on this sort of concern given their emphasis elsewhere on digital tools which, if well constructed, should be able to seamlessly blend spells and spell lists from multiple sourcebooks. And even for analog players, it shouldn't be difficult to provide merged spell lists as printable documents.
(Was half-tempted to put a sob emoji there but I'm trying to keep my mood up.)
