D&D (2024) What do you think of the new rules for preparing spells?

[Reynard]

That’s completely ridiculous, and founded in literally nothing but cynicism.

I didn't claim otherwise. I also don't think this playtest is actually a playtest so much as a marketing campaign.

On topic: it seems like an unnecessary change that has the net effect of reducing player choice in how they build their caster. To what benefit?

 

[Stalker0]

"Easier"? It look a lot fiddlier to me!

Yeah the new version is in no ways simpler, quite the contrary. In the old one it was simple, I get X spells, pick what you want. Now you have to double check that you picked 4 1st and 2 2nd exactly, that's a lot more effort.

I think the new version is just bad. It makes you weaker at low levels, its less flexible, I think its actually more compex since you have to track more specifically...I don't see the appeal in the slightest.

 

[delericho]

For the benefit of those of us with no access to D&D Beyond, any chance of a summary of the change?

 

[MockingBird]

I've been following the UAs and I didn't even realize the spell casting prep has changed. When did they change it?

 

[billd91]

Yeah the new version is in no ways simpler, quite the contrary. In the old one it was simple, I get X spells, pick what you want. Now you have to double check that you picked 4 1st and 2 2nd exactly, that's a lot more effort.

I think the new version is just bad. It makes you weaker at low levels, its less flexible, I think its actually more compex since you have to track more specifically...I don't see the appeal in the slightest.

I'm not entirely sure it's a whole lot more complex, but it does seem to defeat the purpose of the approach to spell selection that 5e encouraged. You certainly could cast a spell at its normal, inherent slot. But one of the great developments in 5e is enhanced support for casting at higher levels. Having a single list of prepared spells encouraged thinking of them as spells that weren't tied to a particular slot.

 

[renbot]

I think it would be fine IF (and that's a big IF, literally and figuratively) spells get more consistent and interesting upcasting options. So yeah you have to learn a bunch of 1st level spells but they are worth casting using 3rd level slots.

 

[scottieboy86]

I also have concerns. I didn't really notice it with the bard and ranger because I didn't understand that every class would have their spell slots limited by the number of spells they prepare. And with the new ritual casting rules, are spellbooks going to only be a liability? Maybe wizards will have greater ritual flexibility.

Also makes me concerned for sorcerer. Many of my players have chosen sorcerer over wizard and other casters over the years precisely because they don't have to prepare spells.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah the new version is in no ways simpler, quite the contrary. In the old one it was simple, I get X spells, pick what you want. Now you have to double check that you picked 4 1st and 2 2nd exactly, that's a lot more effort.

I think the new version is just bad. It makes you weaker at low levels, its less flexible, I think its actually more compex since you have to track more specifically...I don't see the appeal in the slightest.

"variant : for a gm who wants more powerful soellcssters you can choose to allow players to prepare as many spells as they have spell slots of any level. This would allow a character with 4first level slots 3 second level slots & 1 third level slot to prepare 8 spells of any level they csn cast & can distort balance among your players though so gm's should choose to allow this only when they feel confident in being able to handle the results".

Players love anything that makes them more powerful and that makes this kind of optional a trivial but the other way around is much more difficult for a gm to push

 

[tetrasodium]

I also have concerns. I didn't really notice it with the bard and ranger because I didn't understand that every class would have their spell slots limited by the number of spells they prepare. And with the new ritual casting rules, are spellbooks going to only be a liability? Maybe wizards will have greater ritual flexibility.

Also makes me concerned for sorcerer. Many of my players have chosen sorcerer over wizard and other casters over the years precisely because they don't have to prepare spells.

Wizard might wind up with a quantum spellbook where everything in it is always considered scribed & sorcerer could go back to extra slots 3.x style

 

[Gadget]

I'm of two minds: it does seem to curtail high level casters a bit while giving lower level utility and ritual spells a boost, but I fear that higher level spells slots will gravitate to a very small number of 'mandatory' spells, with most others never seeing the light of day. And given WOTC's penchant for high level spell balance...this does not sound ideal.

On the other hand, maybe spell scaling will be tweaked to make it much more worthwhile. The revised Spiritual Weapon gives a modicum of hope in that area. If that first level prepared Magic Missile scaled really well--for example--you might not have as much of a need for some of the higher level spells you would normally prepare.