D&D 5E Reworking Spell Lists (Reducing "Sameyness")

[doctorbadwolf]

Agathys is a layer of Carceri, so Cleric; Hadar is a star, so Warlock?

Long-time wizard spell.

Druid (thus ranger) already gets Longstrider.

Always been a wizard spell. The very name implies it's un-natural.

Always been a wizard spell, Druid already has Entangle.

Hell says it all: Cleric.

Key Warlock spell. Either Wizard, or make it a Warlock feature.

Classic EHP. Cleric.

Originally a Wizard spell.

So, the idea is that the warlock won’t be casting spells at all? Will their invocations be widely expanded, or what? The combination of reliable damage dealing and an oddball spell list where you can focus on damage, or control a bit, or defense, or utility, is probably the main thing that makes the warlock fun, so I’m wondering what makes the warlock fun in this model?

 

[Sadras]

Spell lists alone aren’t going to cut it.

Agree, but it is a decent start with possibilities of having to change the Warlock and Sorcerer (at minimum) due to these changes.

I’d say the opposite, this goes much too far, IMO, creating new problems that don’t need to exist.

Still, there are interesting things involved, so I plan on treating it as a + thread.

Maybe on your first thought, but definitely with you on the second. I will definitely be following this thread. I like the current allocation of cantrips and 1st level spells.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't like clerics having Arms of Hadar.

Hadar, like Caiphon and Arcamar, are Elder Evil stars. They can't grant cleric spells. No god would ever use their spells nor invoke them. Hadar seeks to eat all.

Same with Charm Person. Druids are not get. They deal with fey and can summon them. But Druids are master of magic from nature and the wild. Humanoids of civilization are not wild and left nature. That's the whole point of the ranger class: To bridge civilization and wilderness. Druids should not have a 1st level charm for people.

I think it is still better to put generic placeholders for now and not cram spells into classes just to hit them.

 

[akr71]

This is a really cool concept and I can't wait to play test. @TwoSix & @dnd4vr are you done yet? What's taking so long?

I jest, but c'mon hurry up already!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Spell lists alone aren’t going to cut it. Treating the symptom, here.

While I see your point, this is just the start.

I’d say the opposite, this goes much too far, IMO, creating new problems that don’t need to exist.

Still, there are interesting things involved, so I plan on treating it as a + thread.

What sort of problems do you think this is creating? I know so of the spell placements will not be to some individuals' liking, but there is nothing new in that.

And thanks for your interest!

So, the idea is that the warlock won’t be casting spells at all? Will their invocations be widely expanded, or what? The combination of reliable damage dealing and an oddball spell list where you can focus on damage, or control a bit, or defense, or utility, is probably the main thing that makes the warlock fun, so I’m wondering what makes the warlock fun in this model?

IIRC from the other thread, the basic idea with Warlock was to give them their Expanding Spells list as per short rest spells, and then give more and maybe expanded Invocations. I can't say for certain, however.

Agree, but it is a decent start with possibilities of having to change the Warlock and Sorcerer (at minimum) due to these changes.

Maybe on your first thought, but definitely with you on the second. I will definitely be following this thread. I like the current allocation of cantrips and 1st level spells.

Definitely some changes to those classes coming! Please continue to follow and contribute anything you want to add.

I don't like clerics having Arms of Hadar.

Hadar, like Caiphon and Arcamar, are Elder Evil stars. They can't grant cleric spells. No god would ever use their spells nor invoke them. Hadar seeks to eat all.

Same with Charm Person. Druids are not get. They deal with fey and can summon them. But Druids are master of magic from nature and the wild. Humanoids of civilization are not wild and left nature. That's the whole point of the ranger class: To bridge civilization and wilderness. Druids should not have a 1st level charm for people.

I think it is still better to put generic placeholders for now and not cram spells into classes just to hit them.

I agree a lot about the Arms of Hadar, so I am waiting for @TwoSix and his feedback as well.

My goal right now is to complete each level as we go, and then rework/finalize them at the end. Level 1 is close to done with those 7 exceptions.

 

[Krachek]

It Is a noble task to set distinctive spell list,
but what is the purpose when subclass like domain, celestial patron, celestial origin break everything by making cross access to spells?

 

[DND_Reborn]

It Is a noble task to set distinctive spell list,
but what is the purpose when subclass like domain, celestial patron, celestial origin break everything by making cross access to spells?

A couple spells here or there I don't think will create too much "sameyness."

It brings to mind a concern I have had when working on the light, dancing lights, and "creating" fire (for Druids) issue:

Is it too "samey" that all three lists have a way to create light? This goes back to the how part of the process. Is the how distinct enough to justify the what?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think that having some overlap on base level magical functions impacts the overall same-yness very much. The minor magical effect cantrips are all very similar too and that isn't a problem either. There's nothing odd about the idea that, regardless of source, magic does magic stuff, like produce a light in darkness. I don't see it as any different than all the classes having damage spells really. The important part is to give each list a suite of things that only it does, like deal with animals or whatever, that none of the other lists do at all.

 

[Krachek]

A couple spells here or there I don't think will create too much "sameyness."

It brings to mind a concern I have had when working on the light, dancing lights, and "creating" fire (for Druids) issue:

Is it too "samey" that all three lists have a way to create light? This goes back to the how part of the process. Is the how distinct enough to justify the what?

I think we got to live with a growing number of samey effects. Each time they add subclass they tend to cross existing classes. Domain cross almost every classes, and Cleric is cross by warlock, paladin, sorcerer, and even barbarian has a little divine feeling with the Zealot.
I think that players has to take care themselves of their « niche » and their exclusivity feeling. Hoping that the rules create every time a square and clear border between classes is utopic. When I was playing wizard I took often spell simply different from what the bard and cleric of my party usually used.