D&D (2024) Class Exclusive spells

[Amrûnril]

I'm certainly in favor of some spells being class specific. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, though, this is a prime example of the Arcane/Divine/Primal system requiring specific workarounds to accommodate dynamics that could (and did) exist organically in class-based spell lists. Such exceptions reverse any advantage that the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists may have had in eleagance or user-friendliness, but restore only a fraction of the distinctiveness that classes gain from individual spell lists.

 

[Yaarel]

It is ok for a class to have a feature that boosts the effect of a specific spell. The design space of the class is adding to the design space of the spell.

The design space of the spells is complex and extremely important to balance well, for the sake of the gaming engine, especially at high levels.

Each spell must be able to stand on its own, and balance well alongside the other spells in the same slot.

It shouldnt matter which spell a player chooses from a slot. They do different things, but are equally desirable, effective, and useful. If one spell is obviously better than the same-slot spells, or obviously worse, it is a design problem.

Disentangling spells from class exclusiveness, helps when monitoring how spells perform during gameplay compared to each other.

Spell bloat is a problem. Bloat drifts into power creep and imbalances between spells.


Again, it is ok if a class has a special feature to augment a spell. For example, the official 2014 Fireball spell does too much damage for its slot. It actually skews the balance of all other damage spells, especially in higher slots.

Slot 3 should deal 6d6 damage. There is math. Damage ≈ 2d6 x slot level. This math keeps higher level gameplay from crashing.

With a bit more nuance, a damage spell that only deals damage and no other significant effects, does well to add an extra +1d6 damage. Thus a balanced Fireball spell can deal 7d6 damage.

But Fireball currently deals 8d6 damage.

It is better to fix the Fireball spell, making it deal 7d6 damage, thus balance well alongside other spells.

Then it is ok if the Wizard Evoker subclass design space has a feature that adds +1d6 fire damage to the Fireball spell to produce this 8d6 fire damage. (Perhaps this feature adds 1d6 to any fire spell.)


Really, there is no such thing as a "class exclusive spell". Either it is a spell or it isnt. If it is a spell, then it must balance tightly alongside other same-slot spells. If so, it doesnt matter which character concepts take the spell. However, if it fails to balance with other spells, then it isnt a spell. It would simply be a class feature that has nothing to do with spell design space.

 

[Mistwell]

I.E.
Scribe spell, why is this a spell in the first place? What was wrong with having it in Spellbook description part? What is a benefit of this becoming a spell?

Wizards cast spells.

That's it. That's the benefit of it being a spell. That the things wizards do, are spells. Even when it comes to scribing, they cast a spell they've studied to do it.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think class exclusive spells should be the mage group's gimmick.

 

[Yaarel]

3e fell apart because of entangling design spaces. It became impossible to balance.

 

[WanderingMystic]

I really like the idea of certain class specific spells for classes like the warlock, sorcerer and cleric where you can create a base spell but then tie it in to what your subclass can do at certain levels.

I would love an Eldritch blast that was modified by your patron just as much as I would love it if your baby pact was modified by your patron or if we had patron specific invocations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I really like the idea of certain class specific spells for classes like the warlock, sorcerer and cleric where you can create a base spell but then tie it in to what your subclass can do at certain levels.

I would love an Eldritch blast that was modified by your patron just as much as I would love it if your baby pact was modified by your patron or if we had patron specific invocations.

I’d really lose interest in the Warlock fast if that much emphasis were put on the patron.

 

[WanderingMystic]

I’d really lose interest in the Warlock fast if that much emphasis were put on the patron.

Just curious, why is that. If I am playing a goo warlock then I want my chain familiar to be some type of eldritch horror or the ability to summon more aberrations, I would love it if I had the option to deal psionic damage instead of force just for thematics.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IMHO, exclusive spells are bad design.
If something is defining the class then make it a class feature, like Divine smite or Combat wild shape.

D&D only needs one spell list, Magic.

And all spells available to all, then just make class/sub-class features define the class by giving mandatory spells known/prepared and features that buff certain type of spells; Healing domain, Summoning, Pyromancy , Aberrant, Stormsould, etc...

This is IMHO not a good idea.

Also making certain class features spells makes it more clear howbthise interact with other game elements.
But it might indeed be better to list them under a class and make them usually unatainable... AND don't make everything a spell.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Exclusive spells are how you make the half casters combat spells not hot garbage when they get them.