5.5E Should bring back diverse spellcaster level design.

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Since Resurrection is 7th level. If you want diverse casters.

Noncaster don't rely on spells: Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, They might get some magic from subclasses to be third casters. Their offense comes from their strong base weapon attacks.

Half casters are Magic Warriors: Ranger, Paladin, Gish. They have spells up to the 5th level and get the most mileage out of attack buffs. Their offense comes from magically buffed weapon attacks.

3/4 casters are Support Healers: Bard, Artificer, Shaman, Archivist. They have access to spells up to level 7 and have a lot of slots to heal and buff. Their offense comes from cantrips.

Full casters are Primary Casters: Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid. They have access to spells of the 9th level. Their offense is based on using their top 4 levels of spell slots.

The question is where to put Warlock.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Steampunkette

Shaper of Worlds
Supporter
So, it seems to me that you bury the lede by putting (3) at the end, because it looks to me that (1) and (2) are specific desired solutions for (3).
Fair.
This sounds self-contradictory to me.
Everyone still gets the same 1-20, everyone gets the same overall power level, not everyone takes the same route to get there (9 discrete levels of spellcasting)

Maintain the overall leveling scheme (Not changing the rate of XP gain or significant power differences between the classes) while changing the leveling scheme (loss of specific spell levels in favor of class-mechanics and benefits that are more thematic).

It was a weird way to phrase it.
There's a problem with increasing design space - larger design space means more rules. The larger the design space, the more your rules bloat to fill that space. Given how common a criticism bloat was for 3.x, I am not sure ensconcing that in the core rules is really a great plan, given that 5e isn't really a lightweight game as it is.

For a 3rd party publisher to work up variations would be fine. But having a goodly amount of regularity or simplicity in the core rules of the base product does have advantages, and you'd have to weigh the improvements against those losses, as well as the issues of balance already mentioned.
Design space in classes means more -abilities-. Whether that creates more rules or more exceptions to rules is up to the designers. But every spell you create is no less "More Rules" than any class ability that you create. Same thing with every Subclass and every Race. WotC is clearly not afraid of complicating their game further and is releasing 5.5e as a way to codify the changes they've made over the past decade.

Unless their intention is to strip out complexity that already exists in 5e, we're going to have a more rules-heavy game after it comes out.

It's only going to be a question of which rules are added, or removed, and whether people think those changes are 'too complicated'. Which, as previously established, is going to be a very subjective and personal threshold that is, ultimately, arbitrary.
Part of why I asked what actual problem needed solving is that there may already be solutions that could be applied without increasing the complexity much.
I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. "Actual Problem" do you know why?

Because like "Too Complicated" it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as "Actual Problem" places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...)

But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity.

It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are "Actual" problems or "Personal" problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration.

Very frustrating.
 

I think one of the things I'd hate about this system is going back to the old "Same spell, different level" that classes had. One of the things that I think was an improvement in 5e was the decision to make spells like animate dead a 3rd level spell instead of 3rd level for a priest, 4th level for a wizard. I far prefer that spells have a set level and that level is the same for each class, no matter when they gain access to those spell slots.
The question is why should Animate Dead be on more than one spell list?

having unique spell lists would go a long way to making different casters feel more unique.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
I am 100% behind making classes feel different.

I am 150% behind making casting classes feel different from each other.

I am 173% that there is too much/many casters doing too much casting in 5e.

AND, I am 187% -maybe 200- having different casting classes, not just feel, but play differently. Not in narrow-to-meaningless ways, or necessarily mechanics (though those certainly matter/contribute), but have different expertises/areas they excel.

Different casting level caps by classes could, in fact, be a good part of that third "difference" making.

I think the way you are differentiating the classes works pretty well...and is similiar in some respects to my own homebrew breakdown. I think weeding out Bards and Warlocks as their own, most limited casting, but with more (or most?) explicit supernatural powers/"spell-like" abilities, AND the addition of a tertiary (would be quadrilateral, in my system/world) "Occult" power source is a very exciting innovation.

For me, first off, there are Mystic classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity to "Channel [Source/Energy]," whether that is Divine energies, Nature [Primal] energies, or some other source -which could easily be defined as Arcane (or "Occult"). Both Bards and -were I to include/have one- Warlocks would fall into the Mystic class. This also lets them have abilities that are not "magic" based/dependent, like some combat ability, some armors more weapons than wizardly mages would be allowed.

And, there are Wizard classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity for "[Arcane] Magic Use," as in spells, ritual, magic item use, and creation/expansion of all of those.

In my game, spell progression for Mystics are a "secondary" feature, not kicking in until 3rd level. So progression is, and remains, behind Wizard classes of the same level. The Mystics' primary magics are from/through their channeling. They are imbued with the power that permits them to do supernatural things/effects. Upon advancing levels, learning to use that power to "fuel" spells is a skill/byproduct of that power with which they are imbued.

I see a very clear (and easy) narrative/flavor difference that you could separate out the Bard and Warlock (and probably other similar archetypes) in that, whereas a Cleric a Druid is a "conduit" for their power source: e.g. the power comes into the caster and flows out through the channel or spell effect; they in the true sense "invoke" their power, and the power does what the cleric wants.

For an "Occult" class, the Bard/Warlock is more of a "battery." They "channel" in a way, but that is more that the power comes in to them, and kinda just bubbles/boils there for a time, until the Bard or Warlock "spends/expels" it for some effect they can do, whether that is a magical bardic song-channel, a warlock's impromptu "patron power/feature," or casting spells. These classes do "invoke" their power (either from the "Cosmos/Divine Music/Song of Creation," however you want to flavor the Bard's source, or a Warlock's [arcane] Patron -assuming that base flavor structure for the class remains), but they also, then, specifically "Evoke" that power which they have/store. As they advance level, they -like all casters- have more power to use for different things...and some of those things can be spells and higher levels of spells, but it needn't be the only supernatural way outpour their energy.

The Wizards then (Mages, Illusionists, Psychics, Witches, et al, for my system/setting) are specifically, and accurately (rather than a narrow "specialist school"), "evokers." They use incantation, ritual, or device to pull the energies (magic), directly, from the universe/cosmos in specific ways to elicit specific (reliably repeatable) effects. (Whether you want to fluff that cosmic energy as stemming from a "Weave" or some cosmic "radiation" inherent to the world's material universe or born of unicorn sneezes and pixie farts, what have you, etc...).

"Wizardly" casters figure out (through learning or innate ability, and really, in almost all cases a combination of the two - making the wizard/sorcerer split less than unnecessary, imo) how to shape the raw energy to do things they want.

The "Mystical" invoker-casters are granted that energy "pre-shaped" as it were.

The "invoker/evoker" combo "Occult" casters are granted [or siphon off?] the raw energy (whereas the full evoking "wizards" have to grab/grapple/harness/direct the energy themselves, Bards/Warlocks are "given/granted/gifted/imbued" with it), store it/build it up, and then figure out how they can/want to shape it.

They are the magical "cheats," as it were. The guys copying their neighbors' work. Finding the "shortcuts" to power instead of the intense training/study/effort of the wizards or devotion/enlightenment/spiritual fortitude of the mystics.

And, yes, I don't see why -if they are being "balanced" from their lack of higher level spells with additional supernatural abilities, channelled effects, and/or innate powers- then where's the harm in limiting their casting caps? I might even go further than the initial proposal...as spell power levels on a scale of "1-9" are really divvied up in triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. Adding in "cantrips/0 level" you could argue there's 10 spell levels.

So, if you're going to break the casting classes up, they should be broken on those lines, I'd say.
Mages (arcane), Specialists (specific arcane), Psychics (mental), witches (combo): Cantrips - 9.
Clerics (divine), Druids (nature), shamans (spirit world/combo): 1 - 6, begin spell accumulation at 3rd level.
Bards (nature), Warlocks (arcane), artificers(?): Cantrips - 5, cantrips at 1st level, begin spell accumulation at 3rd (or 5th?) level.

I don't necessarily use them or -in the Ranger's or Monk's cases allow them spells at all, but if you are using spells or granting supernatural effects, the flavor/power equality should be, roughly:
Paladins, Rangers, Monks (argument could be made for eldritch knight and arcane trickster types here, too): 1-3, begin spell accumulation at 5th (or even 7th?) level.

I'm really liking this direction.
 
Last edited:

Vaalingrade

Legend
I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.

No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.

Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.

The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.
 

I am 100% behind making classes feel different.

I am 150% behind making casting classes feel different from each other.

I am 173% that there is too much/many casters doing too much casting in 5e.

AND, I am 187% -maybe 200- having different casting classes, not just feel, but play differently. Not in narrow-to-meaningless ways, or necessarily mechanics (though those certainly matter/contribute), but have different expertises/areas they excel.

Different casting level caps by classes could, in fact, be a good part of that third "difference" making.

I think the way you are differentiating the classes works pretty well...and is similiar in some respects to my own homebrew breakdown. I think weeding out Bards and Warlocks as their own, most limited casting, but with more (or most?) explicit supernatural powers/"spell-like" abilities, AND the addition of a tertiary (would be quadrilateral, in my system/world) "Occult" power source is a very exciting innovation.

For me, first off, there are Mystic classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity to "Channel [Source/Energy]," whether that is Divine energies, Nature [Primal] energies, or some other source -which could easily be defined as Arcane (or "Occult"). Both Bards and -were I to include/have one- Warlocks would fall into the Mystic class. This also lets them have abilities that are not "magic" based/dependent, like some combat ability, some armors more weapons than wizardly mages would be allowed.

And, there are Wizard classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity for "[Arcane] Magic Use," as in spells, ritual, magic item use, and creation/expansion of all of those.

In my game, spell progression for Mystics are a "secondary" feature, not kicking in until 3rd level. So progression is, and remains, behind Wizard classes of the same level. The Mystics' primary magics are from/through their channeling. They are imbued with the power that permits them to do supernatural things/effects. Upon advancing levels, learning to use that power to "fuel" spells is a skill/byproduct of that power with which they are imbued.

I see a very clear (and easy) narrative/flavor difference that you could separate out the Bard and Warlock (and probably other similar archetypes) in that, whereas a Cleric a Druid is a "conduit" for their power source: e.g. the power comes into the caster and flows out through the channel or spell effect; they in the true sense "invoke" their power, and the power does what the cleric wants.

For an "Occult" class, the Bard/Warlock is more of a "battery." They "channel" in a way, but that is more that the power comes in to them, and kinda just bubbles/boils there for a time, until the Bard or Warlock "spends/expels" it for some effect they can do, whether that is a magical bardic song-channel, a warlock's impromptu "patron power/feature," or casting spells. These classes do "invoke" their power (either from the "Cosmos/Divine Music/Song of Creation," however you want to flavor the Bard's source, or a Warlock's [arcane] Patron -assuming that base flavor structure for the class remains), but they also, then, specifically "Evoke" that power which they have/store. As they advance level, they -like all casters- have more power to use for different things...and some of those things can be spells and higher levels of spells, but it needn't be the only supernatural way outpour their energy.

The Wizards then (Mages, Illusionists, Psychics, Witches, et al, for my system/setting) are specifically, and accurately (rather than a narrow "specialist school"), "evokers." They use incantation, ritual, or device to pull the energies (magic), directly, from the universe/cosmos in specific ways to elicit specific (reliably repeatable) effects. (Whether you want to fluff that cosmic energy as stemming from a "Weave" or some cosmic "radiation" inherent to the world's material universe or born of unicorn sneezes and pixie farts, what have you, etc...).

"Wizardly" casters figure out (through learning or innate ability, and really, in almost all cases a combination of the two - making the wizard/sorcerer split less than unnecessary, imo) how to shape the raw energy to do things they want.

The "Mystical" invoker-casters are granted that energy "pre-shaped" as it were.

The "invoker/evoker" combo "Occult" casters are granted [or siphon off?] the raw energy (whereas the full evoking "wizards" have to grab/grapple/harness/direct the energy themselves, Bards/Warlocks are "given/granted/gifted/imbued" with it), store it/build it up, and then figure out how they can/want to shape it.

They are the magical "cheats," as it were. The guys copying their neighbors' work. Finding the "shortcuts" to power instead of the intense training/study/effort of the wizards or devotion/enlightenment/spiritual fortitude of the mystics.

And, yes, I don't see why -if they are being "balanced" from their lack of higher level spells with additional supernatural abilities, channelled effects, and/or innate powers- then where's the harm in limiting their casting caps? I might even go further than the initial proposal...as spell power levels on a scale of "1-9" are really divvied up in triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. Adding in "cantrips/0 level" you could argue there's 10 spell levels.

So, if you're going to break the casting classes up, they should be broken on those lines, I'd say.
Mages (arcane), Specialists (specific arcane), Psychics (mental), witches (combo): Cantrips - 9.
Clerics (divine), Druids (nature), shamans (spirit world/combo): 1 - 6, begin spell accumulation at 3rd level.
Bards (nature), Warlocks (arcane), artificers(?): Cantrips - 5, cantrips at 1st level, begin spell accumulation at 3rd (or 5th?) level.

I don't necessarily use them or -in the Ranger's or Monk's cases allow them spells at all, but if you are using spells or granting supernatural effects, the flavor/power equality should be, roughly:
Paladins, Rangers, Monks (argument could be made for eldritch knight and arcane trickster types here, too): 1-3, begin spell accumulation at 5th (or even 7th?) level.

I'm really liking this direction.
Wouldn’t it be nice if bards actually used the skill performance to cast their spells? Instead of it being secondary to the class as a whole.
 
Last edited:

Faolyn

(she/her)
I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. "Actual Problem" do you know why?

Because like "Too Complicated" it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as "Actual Problem" places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...)

But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity.

It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are "Actual" problems or "Personal" problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration.

Very frustrating.
I think what Umbran is asking is, what problem do you have with the way it is now?

And also, he's pointing out that there's a difference between "I have a problem" and "I have a problem, and from what I've seen, at least some other people have the same problem as well."
 

I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.

No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.

Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.

The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.
I agree with 25% of this post.
 

le Redoutable

I mean you no harm
just to add material :
in Ad&d 1st end 2nd Ed, after the name level, Clerics were climbing every 225.000 xp , while Magic-users would require 375.000 xp;

also good Clerics should have beneficial Necromantic spells, while Wizards had Energy Drain or the like ( ?? )
 

I’ve had an idea bouncing in my head for a while. Dangerous Journeys had a really rich magic system and it would be nice to have something similar:

with the official books out, there are around 506 spells. If you broke them up(or made new spells - you’d have to to make the lists even) you could have 16 distinct spellcasting lists if you put 30 spells per list. (I suggest less)

(this is just brain storming)

illusion
White (healing and buffing)
Dark (necromancy and death)
General
Divination
Abjuration
Etc…

Each list has 3 or 4 spells per level: one utility, attack, defence maybe crowd control. Some lists will lean more to specific types: divination might have more utility while elemental might have more attack. All lists go to 9th level. Or 8th or whatever.

a wizard starts with General magic which has a good mix of offence and defense and utility but can only access 4th or 5th level spells at most.

at 3rd, as a class feature, they take a specialty (a major)which allows them to pick from one of the other lists and a spell level cap of 9th in that school and grants them access to some powers as they level. They take a minor which allows them access to a 3rd list but can only access, at most, 3rd level spells from their minor school. So a 20th level wizard might have up to 5th level General spells, 9th level dark magic spells and 3rd level elemental spells. And access to NO other spells.

another mage might have White and illusion. So, as they level up, wizards really look different.

a generalist, on top of whatever powers you give to them can access minor spells from any list and gets access to 9th level general spells, including Wish.

Spellsinging (for bards)

clerics have own spell list with small lists based on the portfolios of their gods. Or portfolios gave access to some of the spell lists above. It would be cool if they had long religious ceremonies that did cool stuff.

warlocks just take spells from whatever list is thematically appropriate for their patron.

way less overlap.
 
Last edited:

the Jester

Legend
I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.

No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.

Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.

The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.
Sounds like you'd enjoy the powers from 4e. They were basically what you describe.
 

cbwjm

Legend
I think if I was going to redo spell lists, I'd follow pathfinder and create 3 or 4 types of magic with each class having access to a single list. There would be crossover in this system with many spells appearing on more than one list.

Possibly I'd base it on the colours of magic the gathering but each class would be able to add additional colours to their repertoire.

Or I'd throw all of the spells into a single list, create a single magic-user class and your subclass would alter your access, perhaps outright limiting some spells, otherwise improving your skill with certain spells.

I don't think any of these methods will actually happen, though maybe wotc will simplify things like pathfinder in the future. I do feel like the way dnd magic is now is so ingrained though that they'll keep individual spell lists for each class.
 


steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
I don't know if a breakdown of 16 magic topics is necessarily the way to go. ..30ish spells per grouping, divided across (let's say) 9 spell levels.

It is certainly doable, of course. You need to use more than 3 or 4 spells per level, though...simply to provide the "greatest hits" of different spells D&D folks expect. In my homebrew, I have 10-15 basically, for lower levels, with the standardized lists of "known spells" diminishing in number into the 5th, 6th, and 7+ levels. So, I get it, and its possible.

But I don't think it would really work for a D&D flavor of magic.

First, there is a certain amount of overlapping stuff that is, not only expected, but makes sense. Clerics would (and should) have a good deal of Abjuration magics...so do Abjuring mages, "White" witches, druids protecting their sacred sites... Conjurers sure need to know how to defend themselves from specific kinds of creatures. Trying to work a system without overlap, again possible, but I don't think preferred by the majority of players.

That said, I am fully on board that a reimagining of the "specialist school" structure we've had since 2e is definitely possible, warranted, and -I would think- could improve the flavor and archetypes of casters significantly more than what we are used to. I completely think different classes should have access to different spell lists...but that doesn't mean every spell has to be different.

In the second, it just seems like a bit more complicated than our "simplified/back to basics" D&D sensibilities have been for this past edition.

The third issue, I see, is basically related to #2 in that you begin to venture down the rabbit hole of "divine spheres" -which started in 2e with, what, like a dozen? And then 3.x comes along and we get umpteen more. Why have a dedicated spell list of "Nature spells," that includes your elemental and weather and animal and plant spells... when you can have a spell list of "Plant" and "Animal" and "Elemental?" NO WAIT, no "Elemental" (that includes weather), but "Fire" and "Air" and "Water" and "Earth" and, then, a separate "Weather," and ya know, some people count "Spirit/Soul/Aether" as a fifth element, do them too! Some use "Stone" and "Metal" and "Wood" as individual "Earth" spheres/flavors....and...and...and... You see how this goes?

I think it would be more palatable for a new iteration to have a more defined and distinct breakdown of Magical "sources" and types/ways of making magic, beyond Divine/Arcane with VSM components.

I've seen the breakdowns used by some homebrewers as : Arcane, Divine, Nature ("Primal"), Psychic, and Occult. I think that really covers/provides umbrellas for pretty much any flavor of magic-user we would traditionally need.

Then, you need to decide on the right distinctions of flavor and [flavorful] mechanics for the kinds of casters.

Then, the rest of the ballgame are the actual lists of spells [and/or supernatural powers] for specific casters.
 

I think if I was going to redo spell lists, I'd follow pathfinder and create 3 or 4 types of magic with each class having access to a single list. There would be crossover in this system with many spells appearing on more than one list.
Isn’t that how it already is? Several lists with crossover in each list? I suppose it’s currently a curated list for each class (with piles of crossover) rather than a set of lists that classes have access to.

but, yeah, that’s kind of what I’m suggesting: several spell lists that each have unique spells. Class FEATURES give characters access to specific lists. So there may be some overlap there.

interestingly, dangerous journeys used a colour system for magic:
Black (evil stuff like hexing)
White(curing and beneficial)
Grey(illusion)
Red(elemental?)
Green(nature magic)

it also had: witchcraft, necromancy, sorcery, mysticism, and lists of ‘divine’ spells.
 

I don't know if a breakdown of 16 magic topics is necessarily the way to go. ..30ish spells per grouping, divided across (let's say) 9 spell levels.

It is certainly doable, of course. You need to use more than 3 or 4 spells per level, though...simply to provide the "greatest hits" of different spells D&D folks expect. In my homebrew, I have 10-15 basically, for lower levels, with the standardized lists of "known spells" diminishing in number into the 5th, 6th, and 7+ levels. So, I get it, and its possible.

But I don't think it would really work for a D&D flavor of magic.

First, there is a certain amount of overlapping stuff that is, not only expected, but makes sense. Clerics would (and should) have a good deal of Abjuration magics...so do Abjuring mages, "White" witches, druids protecting their sacred sites... Conjurers sure need to know how to defend themselves from specific kinds of creatures. Trying to work a system without overlap, again possible, but I don't think preferred by the majority of players.

That said, I am fully on board that a reimagining of the "specialist school" structure we've had since 2e is definitely possible, warranted, and -I would think- could improve the flavor and archetypes of casters significantly more than what we are used to. I completely think different classes should have access to different spell lists...but that doesn't mean every spell has to be different.

In the second, it just seems like a bit more complicated than our "simplified/back to basics" D&D sensibilities have been for this past edition.

The third issue, I see, is basically related to #2 in that you begin to venture down the rabbit hole of "divine spheres" -which started in 2e with, what, like a dozen? And then 3.x comes along and we get umpteen more. Why have a dedicated spell list of "Nature spells," that includes your elemental and weather and animal and plant spells... when you can have a spell list of "Plant" and "Animal" and "Elemental?" NO WAIT, no "Elemental" (that includes weather), but "Fire" and "Air" and "Water" and "Earth" and, then, a separate "Weather," and ya know, some people count "Spirit/Soul/Aether" as a fifth element, do …
The magic system, as is, is a huge list of spells for each class. As I stated, 506 spells. So dividing them into different categories isn’t any more confusing than having a list for each class.

as far as having too few spells/ level, I just imagined class features giving you access to more than one list. So, having two lists gives you 6 to 8 spells/level.

in any case, it’s all theory. I’d just like to see casters look different. Maybe I’m hijacking the thread. If so, I apologize to @Steampunkette
 

cbwjm

Legend
Isn’t that how it already is? Several lists with crossover in each list? I suppose it’s currently a curated list for each class (with piles of crossover) rather than a set of lists that classes have access to.
It kind of is, but in pathfinder 2e it is split into 4 lists: Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult (or eldritch or something, I always forget the name of the 4th one. I looked it up, it was Occult). Then the different classes gain access to a specific list.

Arcane: wizard
Divine: cleric, paladin
Primal: druid, ranger
Occult: bard, witch
Sorcerer: check your bloodline. Might be the same with the witch, I'd have to reread core rules again (actually, it looks like the witch isn't out in Pathfinder 2e, or at least not in the books I have for it.).

I've been reading the old d20 WoW RPG and I quite liked how they worked. You have the main arcanist or healer list that everyone had access to, and then your path (subclass) gave you access to additional spells. Warlocks got conjuration, necromancers got necromancy, makes got various arcane spells. Same with the healer class and the priest, druid, and shaman paths. I'm somewhat tempted to ask my friends if they want to play that system next.
 
Last edited:


It kind of is, but in pathfinder 2e it is split into 4 lists: Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult (or eldritch or something, I always forget the name of the 4th one). Then the different classes gain access to a specific list.

Arcane: wizard
Divine: cleric, paladin
Primal: druid, ranger
Occult: bard, witch
Sorcerer: check your bloodline. Might be the same with the witch, I'd have to reread core rules again.

I've been reading the old d20 WoW RPG and I quite liked how they worked. You have the main arcanist or healer list that everyone had access to, and then your path (subclass) gave you access to additional spells. Warlocks got conjuration, necromancers got necromancy, makes got various arcane spells. Same with the healer class and the priest, druid, and shaman paths. I'm somewhat tempted to ask my friends if they want to play that system next.
Yeah, that sounds cool. I really don’t like the direction they went with conjurers being all about teleporting instead of summoning. Maybe there should be a summoner.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top