Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8804971" data-attributes="member: 18">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 &quot;Bard&quot; spell list.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&amp;D playtest, in terms of accessibility/barriers to entry, it's been consistently &quot;one step forwards, one step back&quot;. 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 &quot;known&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8804971, member: 18"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification