D&D (2024) Grand Unified Spell Progression

fuindordm

Adventurer
So now we have some more visibility into the spell progression rules for the classes:
  • All casters share the same spell slot table (same as 2014)
  • Classes can be full casters, 1/2 casters, or 1/3 casters on the spell slot progression (same as 2014)
  • The "number of prepared spells" is tied to caster level and also shared by all casters, with a small exception for low-level 1/2 and 1/3 casters (once 2nd level spells are available the progress reverts to standard)
  • The rules for preparing spells are all over the place, and this REALLY IMPORTANT class feature is buried deep inside what looks like standardized text on spellcasting rules. Our two 1/2 casters can swap one prepared spell per long rest; our 1/3 caster as well as bard and sorcerer can swap one prepared spell per level up.
  • Trying to call everything a "prepared spell" obfuscates this major difference between the spellcasting classes.
The number of spells prepared is a potential balancing factor between spellcasters, but it looks like it's been taken out of consideration. Will wizards have the same progression as sorcerers for spells prepared? It might be acceptable if wizards can change spells prepared during a short rest.

Also, on reading the cleric and druid again in the latest playtest, they don't feel very different. They have different "channel" style powers and spell lists but mechanically and structurally they are very similar. Are wild shape, channeling, spell slots, sorcery points, and smites all just fungible mana with different names ?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Also, on reading the cleric and druid again in the latest playtest, they don't feel very different. They have different "channel" style powers and spell lists but mechanically and structurally they are very similar. Are wild shape, channeling, spell slots, sorcery points, and smites all just fungible mana with different names ?

Probably, but 23 year old tradition.

Druids and clerics used to be priests. Sorcerers did not exist.

In the end, subclasses will make a deciding point what justifies a class and what not.
Would fighter/champion and fighter/battlemaster better be two seperate classes?

Maybe.

But then, subclasses for both might overlap and if we are honest, the fighter could have both, champion and battlemaster abilities baked in the base class and there would still be room for a subclass.

I currently see it this way:

Having sorcerers and wizards as two different classes makes both a little less overpowered than having them combined.

(like dex needing 5 skill proficiencies to improve every important part, while str only needs a single one).
 

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
I started to write this big long reply on sameiness in D&D casting--5e is the most diverse, 3e comes close, pre 3e only difference was the spellbook. But there has always been a lot of similarity.

As for clerics and druids, they have always worked the same way spellwise. Slightly different caster table in 1e, thats about it. At least they have different spell lists!
 

Daraniya

Explorer
I have always seen druids as clerics of a nature deity.

But then, clerics are pact magic too... you agree to serve a higher power, hopefully for a better end. Warlock agrees (forcefully sometimes) to serve a higher power and your end is not always good.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top