OneDnD Arcane/Divine/Primal Spell Lists: Are the Benefits Real?

Yaarel

Mind Mage
One of the benefits of these spell lists is that when I was making a shaman class, I kind of wanted there to be just a primal spell list rather than creating a shaman spell list from scratch, now, assuming these spell lists go ahead, I'll just say they have access to the primal spell list and be done with it, much easier. They can hang out with the druids and talk about the differences in how they approach primal magic, through nature or through the elements.
"Primal" ≈ Transmutation (lifeforms) with Evocation (elements)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

the Jester

Legend
In my opinion, this is a change for the sake of change without any real tangible benefits. It really doesn't improve anything; it muddies things for any class that doesn't (or shouldn't) have access to a full list. Clearly, my opinion isn't shared by everyone, but I just don't see this improving the game in any way. Does it simplify things? No, because the lists are not actually helping define what most of the classes get as spells- you have to comb through them by school to see what your bard can cast (and I am pretty sure a lot of bard players will accidentally take spells they shouldn't). Does it make the classes' spell lists better? I don't think so; it dilutes class identity (e.g. druids with cordon of arrows, bards with hex), and I don't think that's a plus.

If they're going to make a series of spell lists, I think they'd be better off making like 30 or 40 lists that are much more specific. Then your bard can choose three from Enchantment, Illusion, Song, Thunder, and blah blah blah, or your cleric can choose five from a long list of thematic 'spheres' (hearkening back to 2e), and so forth. But what a waste of page count.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
5 is better for a start and they can add more.

5 is also how MTG does it and they are under the same roof.

With 5, they can easily future proof it by adding new lists if they include the new lists and classes that use them in the same books.
MTG has 5 colors. They have MANY lists. All 5 colors + all the color combinations separately as lists + colorless.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'd call it Astral and have Psionics, True Names, and Words of Creation linked to the Astral and Ethereal planes.

Bards would have access to all Astral spells except Conjuration.
Psions would have access to all Astral spells except Illusion
Ardents wold be Astral halfcasters
Illusion is right up a psion's alley, though, but Necromancy really isn't. And bard's are more likely to be conjuring things than lobbing fireballs and lightning bolts.

I'd go with...

Bards would have access to all Astral spells except Evocation.
Psions would have access to all Astral spells except for Necromancy.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Healing spells have moved around a few times.
  • In 2e they were necromancy
  • In 3.5 they were "Conjuration (Healing)"
  • I have no idea what they were in 4e
  • In 5e they are just "Conjuration" no (healing)
  • in the expert packet they are abjuration
Necromancy was probably the most accurate but conjuration isn't off the mark if they work like star trek's dermal regenerator doodads. Abjuration might fit nice if the spell is influencing the luck aspect of HP. With the exhaustion 1-10 it may well be that all HP are luck & training while the 1-10 exhaustion are what sometomes gets called "meat"
The point is that in 5e when it is Evocation, 2e as Necromancy,or 3e as Conuration , you could see it logically.

It was healing/radiant/positive energy that closed wounds, restored stamina, or restored luck. Cure Wounds was energy goes from hand to body.

What changed was which school emitted radiant/positive energy. Which was never Abjuration.

Eh, spell schools were already muddled and nonsensical, so it's not as big of a deal for me. I would prefer if they just fixed spell schools, but if they're going to be nonsensical, they might as well make them a factor of class balance.

Probably ban evocation from artificers and then add it back for specifically the Artillerist subclass.
No need to make it worse.

A Bard players should be able to hear about a sonic, healing, illusion, or meantal spell and say "Well that hits the bard's theme, I should be able to cast it.". Then just look up whether it is on the Bard list or Arcane.

Especially if Bard become prepared spellcaster.
In 1e, the one class Wizard ("Magic-User") was any kind of spell casting concept, including "warlock", "sorcerer", "enchanter", "necromancer", and so on. Meanwhile, only the Wizard was a "full caster" with slots upto 9th. The other casters were part casters that could only reach the 7th slot or less. But today, there are different kinds of full caster classes. The Wizard needs to split away some schools, so it can specialize more, and so other full caster classes can have more design space for their own flavor concepts.

The Wizard is especially is known for "Fireball", in other words the Evocation school. I also associate the Wizard with the old school Illusionist. Meanwhile, magical energy and spell research generally is part of the class concept, whence an updated sense of Conjuration that relates to the magical energy of Dispel Magic and force constructs, as well as force Magic Missile, telekinetic Fly, and so on.

Enchantment makes less sense for the Wizard today, and makes much more sense for the Bard and the Warlock today.

Transmutation in the sense of lifeforms, healing, shapeshifting, animals and plants, makes less sense for the Wizard, and more sense for the Druid and Bard.

Personally, I prefer the Wizard lacks the Necromancy school, and the Cleric and Warlock focus on it. (Traditionally the Cleric is the turner or the controller of Undead and Fiend, but today also the Warlock traffics with Undead, along with Fiend and Aberration.)

And so on. Today the "full casters" do well to focus the flavor thematically, to distinguish from each other.
The big problem is that this is your preference but not D&D's.

The Wizard class of D&D is efined as being a scholarly caster who has a spell list that includes all 8 schools of spells. Same with Cleric and Druid.

You would get Warlords in the 2024 PHB before you take away a single spell school from the Wizard or Cleric.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
The main benefit of shared spell list is future proofing.

The main flaw of shared spell list is reconciliation of past and present. The Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard don't have the similar themes.

The easiest solution is not to put 5 very different classes in the same shared list.
 

Aldarc

Legend
This thread is about the pros and cons of this new spell list system, and yet people are turning it into how they would revise the system if they were king for the day, and those "fixes" seem more complicated and far removed from either 5e D&D or the One D&D playtest that I'm not sure what purpose they actually serve in this thread.

Look, I'm a classroom teacher. Every barrier to entry you accept on learning something is a few more people who will never bother learning it. Yeah new players can read, but that doesn't mean they want to read more before they play. Yes they can take notes, but few of them will. Nothing is an insurmountable barrier to the most dedicated learners, everything is a barrier to the disinterested. There is a vast group in between who will put in substantial effort but will feel overwhelmed at some point, and a game that doesn't hook them before it frustrates them into giving up is not a game they are ever going to learn.

I don't think the changes I'm complaining about are a "nobody could ever learn this impossible game" situation, but I think they are a "maybe 2% of the people who try the game who would have followed through on learning it and joining the hobby under 5e rules will feel overwhelmed and loose interest under 5.5 rules" situation. I'm offended not because the changes are major, but because they are in the wrong direction.

Game design is, in some ways unfortunately, dominated by the type of people who succeeded at learning games, just as teaching tends to be dominated by people who thrived in school. This creates a lot of blind spots. New teachers are almost always terrible on this front (though they often make up for it by having passion and enthusiasm the veterans have lost), but gradually as they have to actually teach they get a far better sense on how learning works for the kids who struggle. Game designers start with the comparable blind spot, but generally have a lot less interaction with the people who struggle to learn their games. I wouldn't be on WotC's case about it if they were a few indie designers doing their best, but they are the leaders in the field working on a comparatively giant and well-funded redesign project. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that, along with incorporating the input of the legal, marketing, cultural-sensitivity, etc. teams should, also be incorporating the input of someone with a firm grasp on educational theory and practice so that they optimize the game for actually being learned. So far 5.5 seems to be heading in the direction of less learning accessibility than 5e, and even if it's just "a little bit" less, that's still a worrying sign.
This is all fair and good, but by my estimation as someone reading this thread, you haven't actually demonstrated that the new version is a greater barrier to entry than the old version. You certainly asserted it to be true, but the "truth" of that assumption seems to rest more on your own prejudices than any demonstrable evidence.
 

This is all fair and good, but by my estimation as someone reading this thread, you haven't actually demonstrated that the new version is a greater barrier to entry than the old version. You certainly asserted it to be true, but the "truth" of that assumption seems to rest more on your own prejudices than any demonstrable evidence.
Figuring out which schools the Bard can choose spells from, and then sorting those schools out of a larger Arcane list is objectively more difficult than digesting a smaller list basically anyway you slice it. I don't know what better demonstration there is than that.

At this point I've seen multiple ways in which a new player has to grapple with a larger chunk of options out the gate in OneD&D than in 5e. I've seen little that seems to make things more beginner friendly, beyond more extensive implementation of recommended or default options, which in my experience the majority of new players will simply turn their noses up at (they're good to have, but if that's what the designers think passes for making the system accessible they are confused). It may not add up to much yet but the overall direction seems to be towards higher barriers to entry everywhere I look.

Feel free to remain unpersuaded, I'm tired of talking about it.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
This thread is about the pros and cons of this new spell list system, and yet people are turning it into how they would revise the system if they were king for the day, and those "fixes" seem more complicated and far removed from either 5e D&D or the One D&D playtest that I'm not sure what purpose they actually serve in this thread
The underlying theme of the conversation is that the spell lists are barely "currentproofed" so it likely won't be futureproofed.

They made it easier to add new spells to a class's list by making figuring out a class's list harder.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Until they actually figure out the presentation and layout of spells in the actual book its kind of hard to make any real judgements. But if we take the current presentation as a guideline for 2024, this is what things would look like:

We will have all the spellblocks still in alphabetical order just like we do now.

- I do not believe this will change. Because of the fact that multiple spells apply to two or more of the arcane/divine/primal group lists... you can't just print the spells in their individual spell groups unless you intend on printing those spells more than once in each different list they apply to. As I do not think they would do that, I do not think they will print the spells by group and will keep them alphabetical.

In front of the spellblock section will be the three spellgroup lists-- arcane, divine, and primal-- spells listed alphabetically.

The same way we have every classes spell list right now at the front of the spells chapter, they will print the three spell group lists. This is fine for the wizard, cleric, and druid, as we expect those three classes to have full access to the entire lists. Those three group lists basically become the individual class list for those three classes.

For the other classes they will either list the schools they have access to within the spell group in their Class write-up, or they will actually print a class list of their specific spells from those groups at the front of the Spells chapter alongside the three full group write-ups.

I don't think we can say for sure which way WotC is going to necessarily do yet. Our expectations right now as players reading these playtests packets are that I think we are suspecting WotC is going to just do for all the other classes what they currently do for the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster subclasses-- they don't have their own spell lists printed in the Spells chapter but instead we are just told in the Spells section of their Sub-class write up the two spells schools they get from within the Wizard class list. So when people are saying this will be more difficult to figure out what spells the other classes get (Bard, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock) it is true. You'll have to remember which of the three Spell groups applies to the class, the spell schools the class gets within that Spell group, and then go through the spells individually in that spell group to find out what schools they belong to.

But again... this of course assumes the formatting I listed above for the spell lists. WotC could save a step for us by printing the three spell groups not alphabetically... but by spell school and then alphabetically within each school. So at least it would be a little easier for players to demarcate which spells they are getting, rather than having to go into every single spellblock to find its school.

Now there is also a third option for the spell lists that is possible, but really will depend on how people are responding-- which is to just print each classes spell list at the front of the Spells chapter exactly as we have it now. The catch of course being that "behind the scenes" the spells on their list are still following the formats WotC has currently given us-- spells are still divided by spell group and certain classes only get certain schools within that spell group. But perhaps they just don't categorize the spells forward-facing like that and instead we just see what we see right now in 2014. This is certainly possible... however at that point it does beg the question of why even bother with the spell groups and selected spell schools if you are going to just print spell lists by class anyway. At that point you might as well just make individual lists as we currently have, and thus don't have to jerry-rig solutions like we see right now for the Bard and their Songs of Restoration-- you can just put those spells back into the Bard's spell list.


So this is the formatting questions we will potentially see being answered going forward. But there's the other question itself, which is how actually useful are these new divisions? Do they serve a purpose (both mechanically and/or flavorfully)?

As mentioned above... mechanically they do create an extra step or two for all the classes that will only being using parts of the spell group, because they have to figure out group and school now, not just a single list. But the question off of that issue though is this-- just how much of a stumbling block is that really?

For that I don't think we can take any of our own opinions on the ease or usefulness of this stuff at face value here... because there's one truth I've seen played out here on EN World for over 20 years... which is that any time someone posts an opinion on why something should be different in the game and their reason for that change is "THINK OF DA NEWBS!"... invariably it just happens to coincide with the exact direction they themselves want the game to go. Imagine that! Someone wants the game to be different, but not for them! Oh no! No, no... the change is for new players... to make it easier for them. The fact that the player also gets exactly what they want is just a happy coincidence.

Which is to say that none of us can really state with any objectivity whether or not asking the player of a Paladin to take two steps to figure out what their spells are-- group and schools-- is really such a hardship. I mean really, we D&D players look up so much goshdarn crap throughout all of these books all the time that there's no way to say with 100% certainty that THIS is a bridge too far. For all we know, we make mountains out of molehills about all of this. Is it an extra step that wasn't there before? Absolutely. Is that step an issue for old or new players alike? Not necessarily.

But if not that, then what? What truly is gained by changing these formats? Or is it just a re-categorization for change's sake? I'll be honest... when I first saw the packet, my immediate thought was "That seems pointless." I didn't know what was gained from the re-categorization of spells into the three groups, other than returning classes kind of back to a 4E power sources format. But that really ends up being more about flavor than it is mechanics-- they are trying to drive home the fluffy connection between Druids and Rangers by giving them the same spell group. Paladins again become attached at the hip to the Cleric... despite the 2014 having tried to separate them by saying things like "Cleric magic is granted them by their god, paladin magic manifests from the Oath they have taken."

The only reason I personally can think of why this flavorful re-direction of classes would be useful is Psionics. If you intend on making the Psion a true class and you intend on using spells as their manifestation format... having an independent spell group of "Psionic spells" that we can see as being "Psionic spells" would go a long way to separating them from the Arcane, Divine, and Primal spells. Now granted, the Psionic spell group would almost certainly include a number of spells that also appear on the other three group lists-- no reason to re-invent the wheel and create a new telekinetic magic rather than just give the Psionic group the same Telekinesis spell that is already on the Arcane list. If WotC actually did this... then maybe I could see a little bit of use, especially if they made additional Psionic classes or subclasses that only used parts of the Psionic spell group.

Although even then, to be perfectly honest... to me even this seems like barely a thing. Because the people who want true psionics don't want spells at all, so it doesn't matter what kind of "flavorful re-categorization" WotC creates, it ain't gonna please most of those players. And most of the other players who aren't that invested in psionics anyways probably wouldn't care if the Psion's magic was listed in a Psionic spell group or just in an individual Psion spell list to match the style of what we have in 2014. Either way is fine.

So at the end of the day from my personal perspective... I don't see the point in this change. I don't think it's necessary. That being said... I also don't think it causes any real issues so I won't care one way or the other should WotC decide to keep going with it. It'll be for me "Okay, fine... this has now changed a little bit, whatever." It's not going to impact me at all because... quite frankly... it's like nothing more than just changing the folder names on your computer desktop. I'll have it in head after like 30 minutes of use and I'll never think about it having been changed again.
 

Figuring out which schools the Bard can choose spells from, and then sorting those schools out of a larger Arcane list is objectively more difficult than digesting a smaller list basically anyway you slice it. I don't know what better demonstration there is than that.
I think that's pretty much unarguable, yes.

Using schools to limit the lists is not smart. The schools are total and utter mess (always have been), spells are not where you expect them, and every reorganisation proposed just moves the problem around a bit.

If they'd given Bards the full Arcane list, they could at least argue for simplicity. As they didn't, they can't. Anyone playing a Bard will essentially have to maintain a spell list which is the "Bard" spell list.
It may not add up to much yet but the overall direction seems to be towards higher barriers to entry everywhere I look.
I mean, I don't see any real evidence for this, but what I also don't see is any evidence of barriers really being meaningfully lower. So far in the 1D&D playtest, in terms of accessibility/barriers to entry, it's been consistently "one step forwards, one step back". Some things are easier to deal with, more straightforward. But equally then other things are more complex or require more player effort.

It feels like there isn't a consistent push towards greater accessibility. And maybe that's intentional? But it's weird.

I think there's a reasonable accessibility, balance and design argument for moving to preparation for all classes (though an equal argument would apply to moving to "known" for all, but that would require more dead sacred cows), but the spell lists, as currently implemented, don't really seem to serve many obvious goals.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
This thread is about the pros and cons of this new spell list system, and yet people are turning it into how they would revise the system if they were king for the day, and those "fixes" seem more complicated and far removed from either 5e D&D or the One D&D playtest that I'm not sure what purpose they actually serve in this thread.
The playtest forum is unfortunately littered with this kind of thing. I find all the what amounts to houserule proposals unproductive and out of place in discussing the actual playtest.
 

Gorck

Prince of Dorkness
One of the benefits of these spell lists is that when I was making a shaman class, I kind of wanted there to be just a primal spell list rather than creating a shaman spell list from scratch, now, assuming these spell lists go ahead, I'll just say they have access to the primal spell list and be done with it, much easier. They can hang out with the druids and talk about the differences in how they approach primal magic, through nature or through the elements.
I, unfortunately, went through the painstaking process of creating a whole spell list when I created my Shaman. But in addition to spells from the Druid list, I also added a lot of spells from the Warlock list. Maybe because of the theme of my Shaman being a nature-based spellcaster, as well as an elemental-based caster, with hints of spooky, creepy, eerie spells tacked on. I should probably mention that my Shaman was originally based on the WoW class at the behest of my daughter.
 


MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
As mentioned above... mechanically they do create an extra step or two for all the classes that will only being using parts of the spell group, because they have to figure out group and school now, not just a single list. But the question off of that issue though is this-- just how much of a stumbling block is that really?
Take into account that classes that used to care about new spells once every few sessions now have to care every time there is a long rest. So it is even more annoying and difficult now.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
There was an issue with sorcerers, bards, warlocks, and rangers not knowing enough spells but a better way to resolve that could have been to give them an extra known spell at level 1 or whenever they gained a feat. Even giving them specific spells based off their subclass to add flavour might not have been frowned upon too much. Warlocks having to learn their subclass spells using their existing known spell slots was a bummer for sure.

I often wonder why tome warlocks never got any invocations to increase spells known.

I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
 

I don't think the PHB is meant to be an instructional text as such, so I don't know that the fact that newer players might be troubled by the potential structure of the new spell lists in the PHB proper is a problem, or at least as much of a problem as it's presented as.

As far as parsing out spell lists based on school access goes, I expect that is part of the push for going digital, because having a filterable table of spells turns that task into a cinch rather than a chore.
 

Undrave

Hero
This makes the lore and meaning behind schools illogical. Which then makes linking classes to schools illogical. And thus new player will be forced to look at the list every time as there will be even less rhyme or reason to spell schools.
They were always illogical to an extant IMO, this is just making the cracks worse.
I have no idea what they were in 4e
They were powers with the 'Healing' keyword, regardless of power source. Spell Schools were only gracelessly kludged back into the Mage in Essentials as the Super Unique Special Awesome keywords for Special Boy Wizards.
The Wizard needs to split away some schools, so it can specialize more, and so other full caster classes can have more design space for their own flavor concepts.
YES!

The Wizard players will NEVER allow it though as that would make them less special and powerful.
 

Mephista

Adventurer
The Bard actually seems to work well if you just give them all Divination/Illusion/Tramsmutation/Enchantment spells from all power sources, not just arcane.

The only non-Arcane Illusion is Silence, which is normally a bard spell anyways.

With Divination, there's a host of new spells, like Detect Traps or Detect Poison, Speak with Animals, as well as the Commune (/with nature) spells and Guidance/Divination/Augury. The Detect spells are extremely niche and kinda bad. Arcane already has its own version of Commune, Contact Other Plane, which is arguably better if more dangerous. The druidic themed ones are things bard should have by default. Guidance, Augury and divination are the only new, really stand out ones, which are either overlaping with Bardic Influence already (I'm looking at you, Guidance) or heavily reliant upon DMs, which is questionable.

Enchantment would offer six new spells, all 1st circle - Bane, Bless, Heroism, Command, Compell Duel and Charm Animal. All thematically appropriate for Bards to have. Well, maybe not Duel, but its not like it will ever be a game breaking choice for a sword bard to take.

Transmutation might be an issue - a wide variety of food based production, shillelagh, bark skin, a few ranger-bow spells.... but I'm not seeing anything that would break anything anymore than the Arcane Transmutation list already does.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
The Bard actually seems to work well if you just give them all Divination/Illusion/Tramsmutation/Enchantment spells from all power sources, not just arcane.

The only non-Arcane Illusion is Silence, which is normally a bard spell anyways.

With Divination, there's a host of new spells, like Detect Traps or Detect Poison, Speak with Animals, as well as the Commune (/with nature) spells and Guidance/Divination/Augury. The Detect spells are extremely niche and kinda bad. Arcane already has its own version of Commune, Contact Other Plane, which is arguably better if more dangerous. The druidic themed ones are things bard should have by default. Guidance, Augury and divination are the only new, really stand out ones, which are either overlaping with Bardic Influence already (I'm looking at you, Guidance) or heavily reliant upon DMs, which is questionable.

Enchantment would offer six new spells, all 1st circle - Bane, Bless, Heroism, Command, Compell Duel and Charm Animal. All thematically appropriate for Bards to have. Well, maybe not Duel, but its not like it will ever be a game breaking choice for a sword bard to take.

Transmutation might be an issue - a wide variety of food based production, shillelagh, bark skin, a few ranger-bow spells.... but I'm not seeing anything that would break anything anymore than the Arcane Transmutation list already does.
true strike
detect magic
identify
detect thoughts
locate object
see invis
clairvoyance
Sending
Tongues
Arcane Eye
locate creature
contact other plane
Legend Lore
Rary's telepathic bond
Scrying
True seeing
Telepathy
Foresight
guidance
Dretect evil & good
Detect Magic
Detect poison & disease
Augury
Find Traps
divination
commune
Legend Lore
Find the path
True seeing
Hunter's Mark
Speak with animals
Beast sense
Locate animals or plants
Commune with nature
Dancing Lights
Minor illusion
Color spray
Disguise Self
Illusory Script
Silent Image
Blur
Invisibility
Magic Mouth
Mirror Image
Phantasmal Force
Fear
Hypnotic Pattern
Major Image
Phantom Steed
Greater Invis
Hallucinatory Terrain
Phantasmal Killer
Creation
Dream
Mislead
Seeming
Programmed Illusion
Mirage Arcane
Project Image
Simulacrum
Weird
Silence
Vicious Mockery
Charm Person
Dissonant whispers
Hex
Sleep
Tasha's hideous Layughter
Calm Emotions
Crown of Madness
Enthrall
Hold Person
Suggestion
Compulsion
Confusion
Dominate Person
Geas
Hold Monster
Modify Memory
Mass Suggestion
ottos irresistable Dance
Antipathy/Sympathy
Dominate Monster
Feeblemind
Glibness
Power Word Stun
Power Word Kill
Bane
Bless
Command
Compelled Duel
Heroism
Zone of Truth
Animal Friendship
Animal Messenger
Dominate Beast
Mending
Perstidigitation
Expeditious Rertreat
Feather Fall
Jump
Longstrider
Thunderwave
Alter Self
Blindness/Deafness
Darkvision
Enlarge/reduce
Knock
Levitate
Magic Weapon
Rope Trick
Shatter
Spider Climb
Blink
Fly
Haste
Slow
Water Breathing
Control Water
Fabricate
Polymorph
Stoneshape
Stoneskin
Animate Objects
Passwall
Telekinesis
Disintegrate
Flesh To Stone
Move Earth
Etheralness
Reverse Gravity
Sequester
Control Weather
Shapechange
Tiomestop
true Polymorph
Thaumaturgy
Purify Food & Drink
Etheralness
Regenerate
Druidcraft
Message
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip
Create or Destroy Water
Goodberry
Barkskin
Cordon of Arrows
Darkvision
Enhance Ability
Heat Metal
Spike Growth
Elemental Weapon
Lightning Arrow
Meld into stone
Plant Growth
Speak With Plants
Water Breathing
Water Walk
Control Water
Giant Insect
Awaken
Move Earth
Wind Walk
Animal Shapes
Control Weather
I should certainly hope that the resulting one hundred sixty four spell spell selection "seems to work" when the 2014 phb bard spell list consists of 121 spells if I counted right. By comparison the entire arcane spell list has 230 spells with 105 in Divine & 123 in Primal. Given the list that "seems to work" is significantly larger than the Divine & Primal lists respectively in addition to being quite a bit larger than the 2014 bard list wouldn't it be odd if a list just over 70% the size of the entire arcane list did not "seem to work"?
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top