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

[Micah Sweet]

I have not read the full thread, so something like this might already be mentioned somewhere.

Having more unified spell lists can make things easier, as long as you then do not create exceptions.
2 of the 3 classes we have seen already have exceptions saying you have access to list X and then listing parts of that list you don't have access to, or the subset you do have access to.
As soon as you do this you create class specific spell lists.

It is also harder for new players.
So I have access to the wizard list but only spells that are of this school....
Goes to wizard lists looks at a few spells, had to go back to the page for his class having trouble remembering the names of the schools as to this new player the names of the spell schools are a new thing.
Player goes back and forth a few times.
Player grumbles why can't they just put a (b) next to the spell name if I can cast it as a bard.
Then goes online to get himself a list of spells the bard has access to that somebody else already made.
Maybe even printing it out and putting the bard spell list in the back of his PHB.

In my opinion the only way a person can think the access to list X with the following expiations is good design is if the designer assumes you will be using a character builder (presumably DnD beyond) that will show you only the options available to you anyway, and you will never have to figure out if you have access to a spell manually in the book.

We are rapidly getting to the point where I believe WotC is going to assume people make their characters online.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The more hand-waving you have to do, the less useful the book becomes, and the more money is wasted buying it.

And how many rules is that? How many rules do you have to not use before you no longer garner any use from the game?

Can't speak for anyone else... but seeing as how the game has thousands upon thousands of different rules and I only handwave a handful of them (as many as my houserule sheets have listed)... I have yet to even come close to the point where I think the D&D rulebooks were a waste of a purchase.

And in the meantime I play a game of D&D that I want... rather than play a version I don't and constantly complain about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And how many rules is that? How many rules do you have to not use before you no longer garner any use from the game?

Can't speak for anyone else... but seeing as how the game has thousands upon thousands of different rules and I only handwave a handful of them (as many as my houserule sheets have listed)... I have yet to even come close to the point where I think the D&D rulebooks were a waste of a purchase.

And in the meantime I play a game of D&D that I want... rather than play a version I don't and constantly complain about it.

I play a game of D&D I want. I'm just sad that the IP owner that is practically all anyone talks about has moved and is continuing to move farther and farther away from that game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Same is what most people want, right?

Apparently? I dunno, it isn’t what I want. And, you know, it’s frustrating seeing people pushing 5e in that direction when “all the classes play the same” was one of the most prominent critiques of 4e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fact that they access and cast spells the same way makes them same-y. That the way they access and cast spells is a spin on Vancian casting is what gives that same-y feel a particular D&D wizard vibe.

This makes me feel a bit hopeless. Like, oh okay, we can’t improve anything if it involves making two things less arbitrarily different from eachother to absolutely no benefit. Great.

Apparently? I dunno, it isn’t what I want. And, you know, it’s frustrating seeing people pushing 5e in that direction when “all the classes play the same” was one of the most prominent critiques of 4e.

But…known spells casting was terrible. It makes no sense to have difference for difference’s sake, when it means that one method just sucks. And why shouldn’t magic mostly work the same way at a basic level?

The critique made no damn sense then and it makes no sense now.

And they still aren’t even the same! The ranger isn’t learning spells in their travels, even though that would make sense. They’re more like a Druid than like a wizard, and even then it’s one class feature in common. That’s it! The entire rest of the class has nothing at all in common beyond basic game math.

 

[Minigiant]

We are rapidly getting to the point where I believe WotC is going to assume people make their characters online.

That's the goal if you are a cynic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But…known spells casting was terrible. It makes no sense to have difference for difference’s sake, when it means that one method just sucks. And why shouldn’t magic mostly work the same way at a basic level?

The critique made no damn sense then and it makes no sense now.

Especially considering people can still play Spells Known with the Ranger and Bard right now if they really want to in this packet... just by not changing out their spells every morning.

If your prepared spells remain the same every day and never change... they essentially become your Known spells.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Especially considering people can still play Spells Known with the Ranger and Bard right now if they really want to in this packet... just by not changing out their spells every morning.

If your prepared spells remain the same every day and never change... they essentially become your Known spells.

If you have ideal bunch of spell prepared, why bother changing them every day?

 

[Charlaquin]

This makes me feel a bit hopeless. Like, oh okay, we can’t improve anything if it involves making two things less arbitrarily different from eachother to absolutely no benefit. Great.

But…known spells casting was terrible. It makes no sense to have difference for difference’s sake, when it means that one method just sucks. And why shouldn’t magic mostly work the same way at a basic level?

I don’t particularly care about known spells casting. I’m fine with moving past it. What I don’t like seeing is the gradual homogenization of character features into a single bland spellcasting mechanic.

The critique made no damn sense then and it makes no sense now.

Well, I agree it made no sense then at least.

And they still aren’t even the same! The ranger isn’t learning spells in their travels, even though that would make sense. They’re more like a Druid than like a wizard, and even then it’s one class feature in common. That’s it! The entire rest of the class has nothing at all in common beyond basic game math.

Spellcasting isn’t one class feature though. It’s most of the features of every class that gets it, and in this UA it’s proportionally more of the Ranger’s features than it is in the PHB.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's the goal if you are a cynic.

I think I've proven by now that I am indeed a cynic.