D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!

[Chaosmancer]

Class spell lists are back, so happy that sorcerers are going back to just being lamer wizards yet again! /sarcasm

This reverting back only helps the Wizard class.

And LITERALLY, they said it was because wizards complained about not being special enough.

They had the greatest access to their spell list with the ability to swap spells every 10 minutes. They had the ability to create permanent custom spells for the price of gold....

And they weren't special enough. They needed to have access to all the things that the sorcerer (and to a lesser extent the bard and warlock) has been desperately gasping for. This ruins the great spells druids were getting from rangers, the amazing bard changes that I LOVED, the ability to finally use sorcerers to summon things.... All so wizards can look out over the plebes again.

Because I bet you they keep those abilities they gained, on top of getting "their" spell list back.

I'm FURIOUS.

 

[tetrasodium]

Paladins already have spells.
Rogues and Barbarians do not.

You mean like like using thunderous smite to push enemies into a firewall?
Or shining smite to give allies advantage?
Or blinding smite to protect your allies from a beholder?

Stuff people will now use instead of hoarding all their slots for damage.

No like

Spoiler: the *37* nonsmite paladin spells you forgot exist

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is simpler to have one system than 2.

And turning it into a spell forces numerous systems onto the ability - things like material components.

Fundamentally the question here is "Simpler for who?" And you can argue that if you have five years experience of D&D 5e and have already internalised the spell system then spell smites are simpler. But for a random newbie having Divine Smite right there in its own paragraph, not having to deal with systems such as components and spell lists makes it fundamentally simpler. And core class features being simpler for newbies is absolutely a good thing.

 

[mamba]

I'm FURIOUS.

welcome to the club, I guess by playtest 9 they will finally have gotten everyone there

 

[Neonchameleon]

Did subclasses starting at third level really poll well? I saw a LOT of resistance to it in terms of clerics/sorcs/warlocks, equally as much as something like wild shape or pact magic. It seems odd that people would go "I dislike getting my subclass features at a fixed rate, but please, have all subclasses start at the same level".

I don't know how it polled. But the following can be all true:

• Having subclasses start at third level is something I fully support because (a) it makes the experience less overwhelming for newbies and (b) it further incentivises DMs to start games at third level for experienced players and to treat levels 1 and 2 as prologue if you play through them.
• I don't think that all subclasses coming at the same rate provides any meaningful benefit to the game as it is now and it does cause backwards compatibility issues while also doing awkward things for which levels you get them at, while weakening the game by homogenising it
• You can make a choice in character creation while only actually having it take effect at level 3 if you want.
• I don't believe that clerics should get their domain at first level. Any nuanced god is going to have more than one domain and time between choosing your god and making the second decision of which aspect of that god is a fruitful time.
• I don't have any problem at all with warlocks only finding out who their patron is at level 3 - or getting generic starter packs for the first two levels.
• The trope of "someone gets magical powers but doesn't understand them" is an old one - and if you want to focus your sorcerer on their domain by picking appropriate spells before getting a bonus to those spells you can. The sorcerer isn't a problem either.

It just blows my mind NOTHING other than weapon mastery managed to excite people.

Oh, the warlock changes excited people - just not positively

Being serious the feat changes were massive and more positively received even than weapon mastery. The rogue changes are great. People love the barbarian rage being fixed so they can sustain it. The thing is that the changes that get remembered are the controversial ones - either because they were bad or because they were mixed or had optimisers delving into details. General acclaim doesn't lead to much discussion.

And I do wonder how (after 6 packets with universal spell lists) they finally said, "oh golly gee, people don't like these!" SIX PACKETS! Did everyone finally wake up on packet 5 and say "you know what, I do not want these" or did WotC say "hmm... Maybe this change is more of a hassle than it's worth. Let's go back to the 2014 lists , it will be easier for backwards compatibility"?

That one confuses me too. I know I'd consistently been commenting in feedback that [thing] was an example of why three generic spell lists homogenised the game in a bad way.

 

[Remathilis]

And turning it into a spell forces numerous systems onto the ability - things like material components.

Component: V

Fundamentally the question here is "Simpler for who?" And you can argue that if you have five years experience of D&D 5e and have already internalised the spell system then spell smites are simpler. But for a random newbie having Divine Smite right there in its own paragraph, not having to deal with systems such as components and spell lists makes it fundamentally simpler. And core class features being simpler for newbies is absolutely a good thing.

So here is this thing. It's not a spell, but it uses spell slots. Its effects depend on the spell slot you use, but it's not a spell. Its effect is magical, but it's not a spell. But it uses spell slots like a spell does. So, it kinda works like a spell, but it's not a spell. Is that clear to you?

Oh, those OTHER smites? Those are spells.

 

[mellored]

No like

Spoiler: the *37* nonsmite paladin spells you forgot exist

View attachment 292338

I'm not sure what your point is...

The play test gives 1 free smite per day. And the rest take spell slots.

Do you want to remove smites all together so no one can spend spell slots on it?

Or give 1 extra spell slot?

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure what your point is...

The play test gives 1 free smite per day. And the rest take spell slots.

Do you want to remove smites all together so no one can spend spell slots on it?

Or give 1 extra spell slot?

Ahh... think I see your problem. In post 120 you partially quoted what I wrote in post 119. The section you omitted does not get deleted from post 119.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think that all subclasses coming at the same rate provides any meaningful benefit to the game as it is now and it does cause backwards compatibility issues while also doing awkward things for which levels you get them at, while weakening the game by homogenising it

I actually didn't care that it homogenized anything (that was done when they opted for one proficiency bonus to rule them all). What I cared about was classes getting them timely. Bards get three total (3, 6, and 14) meaning they have very little room to make their subclass impactful. Monks don't get their last ability until 17th level, paladins get theirs at 20, sorcerers get at 1st, 6th, 14 and 18! Rogues don't get their second until 9th! Assuming you are one of the majority of players who never make it past 15th level, most of the classes never see the bulk of their subclass features. 3, 6, 10, 14 was a perfect level set for classes to get subclass features on. It meant most PCs would see most if not all of them before 15th level.

 

[mellored]

Ahh... think I see your problem. In post 120 you partially quoted what I wrote in post 119. The section you omitted does not get deleted from post 119.

So "divine smite" is just +1d4 radiant damage, scaling to +1d12?

I guess.

Just don't mess up thunderous, shining, blinding, staggering, and banishing smites. They are all in a good place now.