D&D General A Class's Spell List Should be Listed With the Class Description.

[Hussar]

Anytime I am creating either a stat block for a spellcasting NPC I want to follow the rules the PCs use or building a spellcasting PC for a game i am going to play in, I get annoyed that the table that tells me how much of each spell level I can cast is halfway across the book from the lists of which spells exist for each level for that class. I am not saying spell descriptions should be part of a class description (that would not work without needless repetition) but I think the spell description chapter doesn't necessarily need class spell lists. Those lists should be with the class.

Not sure if this is a consideration for the 2024 PHB but I am much more likely to actually buy it if it did. Reorganizing the books is actually a bigger draw for me than the rules changes.

4e called.

This will never happen.

 

[Lanefan]

I am not down with every spell being unique to one class. If 6 different classes are intended to be able to Cure Wounds or remove conditions with Lesser Restoration, why should there be 6 different versions of Cure Wounds, or Lesser Restoration? It's a waste of space.

It's also a good way of balancing caster classes against each other, if they get the same spells but some are simply better at certain spells than others.

In my game, for example, there's three types of Clerics: Normal, Nature, and War. They all get Cure Light Wounds but each roll a different die when casting one because Natures are really good at healing and Wars suck at it (Normals are the bog-standard Cleric). The flip side is that combat-oriented spells (e.g. Prayer) cast by War Clerics are always more effective than if cast by other Cleric types.

Clerics and Mages both get Detect Magic, but the Clerical version only gives 'yes' or 'no' while the Mage version gives relative strength (and would give school if I used such).

I also have some caster classes get the same spells at different levels than others. For example Illusionists get most illusion-based spells at lower level than do standard Mages, because illusions are what they do.

Spell lists that all appropriate classes draw from is one of the biggest design strengths of the game.

Combining the write-ups for the same spell into one is fine but you can still distinguish between classes within those write-ups.

 

[steeldragons]

How I do it/think it should work...

1. Yes. Each Class should have their spell lists listed - preferably with a brief descriptive, no mechanics - in their Class pages/section. It gives a potential player immediate access to "look at the kinds of things you could/will be able do." It lends immediate flavor to the class.

2. Yes. There still needs to be a "Spells/Magic" section to a player's manual, to give all of the details, mechanics, expanded description, and/or expanded uses (a 5th level caster can then do/get X from this spell, a 9th level caster can then do/get Y, etc...)

3. No. There is no reason every spell list needs be entirely original....Clerics - in my game - get Cure Wounds (I) as a 1st tier spell. Druids don't get Cure Wounds as a 2nd tier spell, which they don't have access to until 4th level, (I think, off the top of my head). Bards have it on their spell lists. Necromancers. I even let Abjurists have some minor healing.

4. No. The same spell appearing on different spell lists need not be of the same spell level or accessed at the same levels of experience for all classes.

5. I am also a negatory that all casters be created equal. All spell lists, even for the same "type" of magic (divine, arcane, nature/elemental,... psychic, occult/eldritch...whatever distinctions you use/like or however you want to break them up) don't have to be the same length. The Wizard/Mage is supposed to be THE caster class. The Best there is at using magic. That's their niche. That's their role in the game and party. They cast the spells. That's what they -primarily- bring to the table. That class should have a spell list that far exceeds any other class' (maybe the Druid comes close). Just for sheer number of options. Another "arcane magic"-using class, a Swordmage/Bladecaster type - accessing the same kinds of spells, using the same kinds of preparation/study (or however you narrate your arcane casters), but - is a niche class. They cast spells with their sword/weapon swings, primarily for use IN close combat situations. Their spell list shouldn't be nearly the panoply of utilitatrian/defensive/offensive options a straight up Wizard has access. Some overlap (Magic Missle, Shield, etc...), sure. Some unique to the Swordmage "magic up my weapon" or "control my section of the battlefield" spells, sure. But not as many as a Wizard. Does the Swordmage need "Charm Person" on their list? Not really, no. Does an Enchanter/Illusionist specialist? Does a Conjurer?

 

[M_Natas]

This is an inherent problem with the medium of physical books. (And I know people are going to hate that I said that)

If you remove the class list from the spell section of the book, and you are reading a spell: Then you have to flip to 9+ different lists scattered across an entire chapter, over half the book away, to see if this spell you like is on any of them.

If you put spell lists in the both class section and the spells section, then you eat up a huge number of pages with redundancy.

Having the lists all centralized in the spell section is the lowest common denominator approach. The best solution from a pile of bad solutions.

They should add to a spell description which class it belongs to.

 

[Horwath]

Maybe also sort spell description section by

Spell level
then every spell level by alphabet.

 

[el-remmen]

Maybe also sort spell description section by

Spell level
then every spell level by alphabet.

That how it was pre-3e (and by class with repetition). I prefer how they are now (alphabetical). I just want the list with the class description.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe also sort spell description section by

Spell level
then every spell level by alphabet.

Which only works until different classes get the same spell at different levels, at which point you're duplicating write-ups.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Which only works until different classes get the same spell at different levels, at which point you're duplicating write-ups.

As a 3x bard player, we should stop this too.

Actually just No More Half Casters, please. If the spell was designed to show up at level 5, it's too weak to be given out at level 9.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Which only works until different classes get the same spell at different levels, at which point you're duplicating write-ups.

getting a spell at a later class level doesn't change the level of the spell itself or it's order in the spell listings, i don't see what the issue is here?

 

[Lanefan]

If a Mage gets spell X as a 2nd-level spell and a Cleric gets the same spell as a 3rd-level spell, the spell has two levels.

Which means it can't be written up by level without duplication. So, just put it in alphabetical order and note in the write-up who gets it when.

In other words, 3e (for all its other failings) got this bang-on right.