D&D 5E Another D&D Next Playtest Survey

TwinBahamut

First Post
All I can say is that I'm glad they gave so much room for writing comments, because I really needed it in order to talk about how much I didn't like the classic spell list. I wouldn't complain if the spell list was completely rewritten from the ground up.

This list was way too focused on the Cleric and Wizard and not focused enough on other classes, as well.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I also was perturbed by the 3.x centric spell list.

I did comment that I thought if there was a spell, it's opposite should be included automatically (i.e., knock and arcane lock).

Still very, very disappointed that they are bringing back the Vancian spellcasting system, even when their own polls showed that it was not what the majority wanted.
 

The Choice

First Post
My soul hurts

Well, that was... something?:confused:

Midway through that thing I almost stopped, and thought about erasing all of my well thought out comments and just writing in my favourite martial powers from 4th edition.

I get that they are trying to bring back "the lost folk" with this, but a lot of what was in that survey was opaque, obfuscated junk. Are we really going back to nine spell levels? Really? The most archaic notion in a game full of archaic notions is making a comeback? I can't wait to have to explain to new players how that works. I can't wait to tell them that their fighter should probably retire now that the cleric has divine power and word of recall. I can't wait for someone to say: "Hey! How come I get the same spells as the wizard? I'm a cleric, aren't I?

This really isn't going to end well. Either that or the survey company they contracted is absurdly bad at their presentation.
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
I got sucked into details, due to the nature of the survey itself, and didn't think to give the comment that, upon reflection, fits my attitude about the exercise:

They could do a lot worse than to take the Rules Cyclopedia spell list as a starting point, cull the 20% of spells that are least popular and/or redundant (multiple cures across levels), and then replace them a similar number of the most popular spells from other editions. Do that, and mix in rituals, you'll have a decent base list to work from.
 

Remathilis

Legend
They could do a lot worse than to take the Rules Cyclopedia spell list as a starting point, cull the 20% of spells that are least popular and/or redundant (multiple cures across levels), and then replace them a similar number of the most popular spells from other editions. Do that, and mix in rituals, you'll have a decent base list to work from.

I actually worked through the list using my RC and clicking on every 3.5 spell that shared common origin. I filled in the rest with AD&D spells.

I agree that reversible spells should return, if for no other reason than to keep the spell-lists short. We don't need Cure and Inflict Wound spells separate for example. We could EASILY shrink both spell lists in half by reconnecting reversible spells and reunifying split-spells (such as symbol) again. It could even leave room for some of the cooler spells from later 3.5 and 4e. :)
 

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
Well, that was... something?:confused:

Midway through that thing I almost stopped, and thought about erasing all of my well thought out comments and just writing in my favourite martial powers from 4th edition.

I get that they are trying to bring back "the lost folk" with this, but a lot of what was in that survey was opaque, obfuscated junk. Are we really going back to nine spell levels? Really? The most archaic notion in a game full of archaic notions is making a comeback? I can't wait to have to explain to new players how that works. I can't wait to tell them that their fighter should probably retire now that the cleric has divine power and word of recall. I can't wait for someone to say: "Hey! How come I get the same spells as the wizard? I'm a cleric, aren't I?

This really isn't going to end well. Either that or the survey company they contracted is absurdly bad at their presentation.
At the risk of sounding harsh:

The goal of D&D Next is to be the edition that everyone recognizes as D&D, regardless of which version is their favorite. That means making sure the iconic elements of the game are in it. One of those elements is D&D spellcasting, which had existed for 34 years (38 if you count Pathfinder, which many do).

Everyone who played D&D within those 34 years (i.e., nearly everyone who has played D&D) recognizes D&D spellcasting as an iconic element, and if the game doesn't include it, it won't feel like that same game to them. We have already seen this with 4th Edition, whose radical changes have led many to declare "it isn't D&D." Even though you are not one of those people, you must understand that 4th Edition is the clear outlier in the big picture, and that both tradition and popular demand mandate that D&D spellcasting is a "core" mechanic in D&D Next.

There will also be ways to play that do not include D&D spellcasting. There will be martial powers and non-daily spellcasters. They are trying to provide sets of options that will make everyone happy. It really doesn't help to complain that the default is not the one you would choose.

In other words: get over it.
 

TwinBahamut

First Post
At the risk of sounding harsh:

(snip)

In other words: get over it.
You bold 34 years like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't. Who cares if a mechanic is older than I am if the mechanic is still widely hated? You say that it is popular, but I've never seen any sign of that. The public polls that WotC held indicated the exact opposite, and I've never seen any gathering of D&D players that didn't have extremely divided opinions on the matter.

In my book tradition mandates that 5E should continue the path of evolution and continue the movement away from Vancian spellcasting that began with 3E splats and progressed with the 4E core. New D&D editions have never been regressive or slaves to tradition before, so why should they start now?

This probably isn't the best thread to hijack with this debate, though...
 

Agamon

Adventurer
I went with no ability buffs, no alignment in mechanics, didn't bother picking the reverse of spells and stuck more with the save or hurt/suck rather than save or die. Didn't get to 10 picks on most levels.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Not only were the spell lists and names very 3e-centric but the levels of various spells were out of whack as well. Since when was Stinking Cloud 3rd level, or Spider Climb 2nd?

To get all the iconic magic-user spells in at some levels I had to leave out some iconic illusionist spells... :(

My guess is that the initial release of 5e is only going to have about 10 spells available per class per level, and this is the opening salvo in determining what those ten will be.

Lanefan
 

Raith5

Adventurer
Everyone who played D&D within those 34 years (i.e., nearly everyone who has played D&D) recognizes D&D spellcasting as an iconic element, and if the game doesn't include it, it won't feel like that same game to them. We have already seen this with 4th Edition, whose radical changes have led many to declare "it isn't D&D." Even though you are not one of those people, you must understand that 4th Edition is the clear outlier in the big picture, and that both tradition and popular demand mandate that D&D spellcasting is a "core" mechanic in D&D Next.

OK, but the problem is that this is the path to creating a game which is already on my shelf. I just think there is a danger of here of D&DN creating something that captures past editions so well that there is no real need to buy it!
 
Last edited:

Connorsrpg

Adventurer
I am certainly for the one spell across all levels/slots, as opposed to separate write-ups at different levels for a 'fire spell'.

So one spell with the variants written into it depending upon which slot you prep it in. Not a massive list of spells with slightly different names.

But each spell MUST be thematically linked (especially for clerics). I do NOT want opposites combined and I would hate to see all stat-buff spells as one (like Savage Worlds, where we separate it).

If you worship a deity of knowledge for eg, I don't think you should be increasing people's strength. God of healing - you shouldn't get 'inflict wounds' just because you can heal them. There might be reasons for this - the god may actually have that side to them, but at least keep the spells to one thematic idea for my mind. That shouls also reduce the list somewhat.

Edit: Oh yes, and what a tedious survey. Wouldn't it have been better asking players HOW they want spells done and then what sorts of spells each caster should have. I could not choose and selected "None of These" after Wizard lvl0. Then added comments at the bottom :confused:
 
Last edited:

gyor

Legend
I mentioned in the comments section that spells with least, lesser, greater, minor, ect... Should be one spells that grows more powerful when you put it in a higher level slot. So putting fireball in a higher slot turns it into greater fireball, and putting it in an even higher slot turns it into delayed fireball. Cure minor wounds becomes cure lesser wounds, then moderate wounds and so forth depending on the slot you place it in. I'd do the same with the image spells right from silent image to permanant image.

This would free up space by killing redundancy..
 


Stormonu

Legend
Looking at that list disappointed me in how many Lesser/Greater/Mass/Cure Level X spells are in the version I favor. Just make the base spell and some sort of universal mechanic for the Amped and Mass versions of the spell already.

Likewise, when it gets stripped down to the likes of 10 spells per level, resurrecting Reversible spells for the cleric seems like an excellent idea (and I put that in my comments).

I also didn't end up selecting the AnimalName StatIncrease spells either because I realized they'd take up so many slots in any given level. Roll them into one spell, make the spellcaster either choose what stat it boosts when they learn the spell or when they memorize it, and go with that.

As far as the Symbol spells go, I'd like to see them stripped out and replaced with some sort of "crafting" mechanic - literally etching any ol' spell into a surface (and perhaps an advanced technique for drawing it in the air - but there doesn't need to be a "Symbol of Sleep" spell; just a "Sleep" spell and some universal mechanic for turning it into a symbol). Same goes for Permanency.

Finally, I also put a big ol' X through the cleric 8th and 9th level spells. I always thought that was one of 3E's big mistakes with the cleric.

I'm hoping the final list per level will be more than 10; B/X's 12 spells per level made it easy to randomly roll up spellbooks/lists with a d12. :)

Were there any spells folks noticed that weren't on there that probably should have been? For example, I don't remember seeing Rope Trick being listed. Also a little surprising that they listed the Cure spells for every level for cleric, but only listed the Summon Monster spells at 1st level.
 
Last edited:

KidSnide

Adventurer
Copied and Pasted "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos/Cure/Inflict spells are iconic to create clerics of all stripes and alignments." over and over and over.

Eh... I think those spells are fine for certain cleric spheres, but I like my clerics to be associated with a concept or a domain, rather than an alignment. Worshiping "law" or "good" always seemed like a very esoteric way to build a religion. Yes, it should be supported (it's useful for some parts and it's historically part of D&D), but it shouldn't be a default part for all clerics.

I found it a little funny how 4th ed spells only really made it into first level spells for wizard and clerics.

The designers have commented that one of the problems they found with 4e is that, with six bazillion different powers, you didn't see iconic bits of magic show up. In earlier versions of D&D, there was a specific thing called a "Fireball". In 4e, there are quite a few ways to have a blast or burst with fire damage. One of them is called "fireball" but it's sometimes hard to tell the difference.

A result of this is that the player base didn't have a common experience with many powers, unless those powers happened to be unusually effective for a common class (e.g. Twin Strike, Low Slash and Come and Get It).

-KS
 


Celestian

Explorer
You bold 34 years like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't. Who cares if a mechanic is older than I am if the mechanic is still widely hated? You say that it is popular, but I've never seen any sign of that. The public polls that WotC held indicated the exact opposite, and I've never seen any gathering of D&D players that didn't have extremely divided opinions on the matter.

Have that same poll on Dragonsfoot or Purpleworm and you will see wildly different results.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Eh, I took the survey...clicked on my favorite spells, wrote in a few little comments at the bottom of each category about "this one is my favorite and here's why" or the occasional "why isn't this spell on the list." Then at the bottom, I left a giant pile of comments in the last comment box.

My biggest comment was that I felt the spells need to be consolidated. And I wrote two ways that this could be accomplished. I'm sure there are more, but these were the only ones that came to mind.

1. Some spells should be able to be cast in reverse, like they were in the BECM days.

Blindness --> Remove Blindness
Contagion --> Cure Disease
Light --> Darkness
Cure Wounds --> Inflict Wounds
Flesh to Stone --> Stone to Flesh

And so forth. Not only would this condense the spells a great deal, it's pretty cool to say "my cleric casts the spell backwards!" It has a very retro, late 70's, backwards-messages-on-my-Beatles-record feel to it.

2. Write one spell, and let it scale by spell level.

Take the Cure Wounds family of spells, for example. At 1st level, it heals 1d8+1 points of damage, just like the Cure Light Wounds spell we all know and love. If you prepare it as a 2nd level spell, it heals 2d8+5 instead, as per the Cure Moderate Wounds spell. And so on and so forth, through the spell levels: Cure Serious, Cure Critical, all of the Cure Mass ones, and ultimately end up with a Mass Heal effect at 9th level, which cures everything for everyone. Combine this with the Reversible spells, and you can replace 18 spells with JUST ONE.

This can be done with other spells as well. Write one spell, called Summon Flames or whatever. Then you get Burning Hands (if prepared as a Lv. 1 spell) --> Flaming Sphere (Lv. 2) --> Fireball (Lv. 3) --> ... --> Meteor Swarm (Lv. 9).

Some spells can start at higher levels and scale from there, maybe even skipping levels. A Restore Life spell could go something like this: Raise Dead (Lv. 5) --> Resurrection (Lv. 7) --> True Resurrection (Lv. 9). Reverse these, and you get a Destroy Life spell that slays someone (Lv. 5), slays them and traps their soul (Lv. 7), and obliterates them forever (Lv. 9).

I'm writing a great deal more here than I could in the survey, of course...I hit the word limit pretty quickly. And then I thanked them for their time, and clicked "Submit." I don't know what they will do with it, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:

Jacob Marley

First Post
Were there any spells folks noticed that weren't on there that probably should have been? For example, I don't remember seeing Rope Trick being listed.

Rope Trick was on the list. I commented on making sure the duration was something closer to 1st Edition's 2 turns/level as opposed to 3rd Edition's 1 hour/level. I don't remember the 1st Edition version to be overly powerful.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top