D&D (2024) There needs to be a 4th spell list.

[vagabundo]

4e missed a trick here. They should have keyed powers by power source and then each class have its own features that interact with them in interesting ways etc. A lot of the powers were very similar with small riders to differentiate or scale them.

 

[R_J_K75]

IMHO, there only needs to be one spell list.

Spells.

all casters have access to all spells.

This is how I feel too, same with "class" features. Its hard enough for me to remember what spells and class features do let alone which ones are for which class. Id prefer a classless system, or at least fewer classes or a looser class system.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

To add to this whole conversation of whether players are "jerks" or not for refusing to prepare certain spells or not because it isn't in character. Or people being jerks for trying to force them to, I point out that it isn't just as simple issue either. There are times where "in character" choices do make sense:
Example: I am playing a cleric and have chosen a god whose dogma specifically forbids the preparation of healing spells. I am not a jerk for refusing to prepare them regardless of if the cleric as a whole can.

I'm of two minds on this. Personally I prefer the mechanical idea of having players be able to switch spells out, but I definitely would fall on the side of erring on spell learning to prevent player conflict though. The ranger not learning a water walking spell would not a table break, where as a party of players trying to pressure said ranger into preparing it might do so. If that possibility can be easily mitigated why not allow it?

Personally I wish we could give ever class an option to choose between being a learned or prepared caster at character selection and give clear mechanical advantages and disadvantages to each as universal concept isolated from class. After all, why can't I play a druid who learns spells and doesn't prepare them? It should be a player choice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To add to this whole conversation of whether players are "jerks" or not for refusing to prepare certain spells or not because it isn't in character. Or people being jerks for trying to force them to, I point out that it isn't just as simple issue either. There are times where "in character" choices do make sense:
Example: I am playing a cleric and have chosen a god whose dogma specifically forbids the preparation of healing spells. I am not a jerk for refusing to prepare them regardless of if the cleric as a whole can.

I'm of two minds on this. Personally I prefer the mechanical idea of having players be able to switch spells out, but I definitely would fall on the side of erring on spell learning to prevent player conflict though. The ranger not learning a water walking spell would not a table break, where as a party of players trying to pressure said ranger into preparing it might do so. If that possibility can be easily mitigated why not allow it?

Personally I wish we could give ever class an option to choose between being a learned or prepared caster at character selection and give clear mechanical advantages and disadvantages to each as universal concept isolated from class. After all, why can't I play a druid who learns spells and doesn't prepare them? It should be a player choice.

Because that wouldn't be "simple".

 

[shadowoflameth]

There needs to be 6-7 spell lists.

Arcane
Bardic
Divine
Elemental
Primal
Psionic
Shadow

If "Everything is a spell" then spell lists need to feel more special.

I think the three are likely fine for the official classes that exist now. I do think though that we still need class lists. Saying that the Bard and Ranger gets everything from their groups but only from certain schools will make looking them up in character creation tedious and prone to rules mistakes. Make Arcane, Primal and Divine tags for example Magic Missile, 1st level Evocation, V, S, Arcane. Then put it in the class lists that you want to routinely have it. Having only the groups would lead to classes getting spells that don't fit or missing ones that thematically would fit and these issues will hurt backward compatibility as well as discouraging new players.

 

[MoonSong]

I think the three are likely fine for the official classes that exist now. I do think though that we still need class lists. Saying that the Bard and Ranger gets everything from their groups but only from certain schools will make looking them up in character creation tedious and prone to rules mistakes. Make Arcane, Primal and Divine tags for example Magic Missile, 1st level Evocation, V, S, Arcane. Then put it in the class lists that you want to routinely have it. Having only the groups would lead to classes getting spells that don't fit or missing ones that thematically would fit and these issues will hurt backward compatibility as well as discouraging new players.

That's exactly the concern behind the thread. Bards without party buffs is not very thematic.

 

[Argyle King]

Agreed - that creates options paralysis. Might as well play GURPS…

You can't threaten me with a good time