Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Connorsrpg" data-source="post: 7398429" data-attributes="member: 19265">The idea of same spell being cast at different levels is MUCH better than having similar named spells to prepare/learn at different levels. (Glad PF & 5E are going this route).I LOVE the idea of each component type being an action. It actually brings these often ignored components into to play. (We already trialled something similar with 5E).Also, in 3E we sorted all divine and arcane spells into 3 groupings: Simple, Advanced?, Exotic (much like weapon proficiencies and a cue from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed). We also borrowed and expanded Monte's idea of spell descriptors. EVERY spell had 1+ descriptor. This meant we no longer had to track every class's individual spell list. (Something I do NOT like in 5E). For eg. A Druid got access to Simple Divine Spells and added spells with certain descriptors to their list. These were usually a choice (for example 6 of the following - where 12 nature-type descriptors may have been listed).In a nutshell, I like modular spell lists that can be easily expanded upon, rather than just adding to every class's list. A big problem in 5E for divine casters that therefore have no limit to spells 'known'.If PF adopts something like the above with its spell groupings, I am all for it. (Looking at discussion in the blog re spell groupings).</blockquote>