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

[MostlyHarmless42]

And I hate bards being forced to have all their healing spells prepared constantly. Healing bard was one potential flavour in 5e, but there were options which didn't have healing at all. This is just pigeonholing them and forcing them into this particular niche.

To me, this Bard is feeling more like a wizard with a guitar than an actual bard.

This is the precise reason why I'm in favor of a 4th spell list for Bards and Artificers. Occult is obviously the pf2e name so something different could be appropriate, perhaps Crafted? Mechanical? Artistry? I'd prefer something neutral to both classes.

I could see the argument for a psionics list as well, though I'd be hesitant to add more after that.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

As a reminder... if there are any spells that Bards cannot have access to (without using their Magical Secrets) due to this new design idea of spell groups (rather than individual spell lists per class)... make sure you bang that gong HARD on the surveys. They really need to know if there are so-called "iconic" Bard spells that they can't get anymore so that perhaps they go back to individual class spell lists.

And this is true across the board for any of the classes-- if/when the Sorcerer gets released and they only are given access to a couple of the Arcane schools (like Abjuration, Divination, Evocation, and Transmutation), all the Sorcerer stands need to make sure to let them know that's not an acceptable condensation.

If no one mentions in the Surveys that they think classes are missing spells due to the spell group / spell school divisions... WotC will never try going back to the old way to see if that's more popular.

Oh you're d%&$ skippy I'll be pitching a fit on the surveys if they pigeonhole the Sorcerer to limited spell schools like that. The bard and other hybrid classes are one thing, but as far as I'm concern the main and arguably only reason to even switch to a generic class list split is so that sorcerers gain access to as many spells as possible compared to the travesty they had before. Honestly I can't think of any other class that has a better argument for making "generic" lists over class lists.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

If the three spell list system makes it to the final product I predict it will be the first thing to go next edition, and that it will make it more likely the next edition is a radically new game because of eroding enthusiasm for this 5.X line of games. There's just no way that it doesn't limit the ability to make spellcasting class thematic, while at the same time making spell selection more difficult. It's design to satisfy powergamers, people who think in taxonomies, and people who have achieved system mastery at the cost of everyone else. It will make it much easier for a veteran player to switch from playing a Warlock to a Wizard, but it will probably make the change far less interesting by the same token.

Always having a new character build I'm pining for that I haven't gotten around to is one of the things that keeps me coming back for more 5e. But part of what makes that possible is being denied whatever I'm looking for in the next build in my current one. If every Arcane caster can try out all my Arcane caster spell desires then I'm probably going to be inclined to play about half as many different Arcane casters than I otherwise would. Making the game less welcoming to new players and less interesting for old ones to try new character builds in is a recipe for a dying game.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

Yes, and no. A "known spell" caster could keep their spells fixed except at level up if they want.

EXCEPT... that 5e :known spell casters: can wind up with only one 1st level spells if they REALLY wanted to and move all those spells to higher levels. A 5e Bard could have up to 7 known 9th level spells. (3 new known spells at level 17-20, plus swapping out 1 lower level spell at the four levels)

Yes, that's as dumb as only knowing one 1st but the point remains that a 5e known caster has a different KIND of flexibility than these prepared spell casters.

I like the idea of the Bard/sorceror having the "right" mix of spells AND levels for their play style and campaign. Maybe they like a lot of low level spells that upcast, maybe they focus on that useful 3rd-5th zone where you have several spell slots. Or you have the high level caster that is prone to having relevant 7th & 8th level spells without having to use their 9th on Wish to cast the spell they wish they had. (Pun intended)

this loses that feature and is "wizard-priest with a guitar".

Plus, I don't want to play a healer. Don't clutter my finite list of available spells with this. Some people do and thats fine but now all bards MUST be healers. If you could heal, but refuse, you are distinctly not a team player. My 5e bard has a smidgen of healing (1st level only) and a few scrolls. Are you hurt enough to blow a scroll? No? Then take a nap and I will play you a lullaby.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, and no. A "known spell" caster could keep their spells fixed except at level up if they want.

EXCEPT... that 5e :known spell casters: can wind up with only one 1st level spells if they REALLY wanted to and move all those spells to higher levels. A 5e Bard could have up to 7 known 9th level spells. (3 new known spells at level 17-20, plus swapping out 1 lower level spell at the four levels)

Yes, that's as dumb as only knowing one 1st but the point remains that a 5e known caster has a different KIND of flexibility than these prepared spell casters.

I like the idea of the Bard/sorceror having the "right" mix of spells AND levels for their play style and campaign. Maybe they like a lot of low level spells that upcast, maybe they focus on that useful 3rd-5th zone where you have several spell slots. Or you have the high level caster that is prone to having relevant 7th & 8th level spells without having to use their 9th on Wish to cast the spell they wish they had. (Pun intended)

this loses that feature and is "wizard-priest with a guitar".

In the current rules, known spells is purely worse. The prepared casters can prepare spells of any level they can cast. You can have all 1st level spells one day and 2 per spell level the next.

The new version it seems has to prepare spells in numbers and levels as shown on the Spellcasting table, which is terrible and foolish.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

This is the precise reason why I'm in favor of a 4th spell list for Bards and Artificers. Occult is obviously the pf2e name so something different could be appropriate, perhaps Crafted? Mechanical? Artistry? I'd prefer something neutral to both classes.

I could see the argument for a psionics list as well, though I'd be hesitant to add more after that.

I'd rather it was bard, warlocks, and maybe a psion later on (though still torn on if that should be a sorcerer subclass).

Artificer has always had a strong focus on 'arcane' magic. It's never been focused on the occult mind altering stuff.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

This is the precise reason why I'm in favor of a 4th spell list for Bards and Artificers. Occult is obviously the pf2e name so something different could be appropriate, perhaps Crafted? Mechanical? Artistry? I'd prefer something neutral to both classes.

I could see the argument for a psionics list as well, though I'd be hesitant to add more after that.

I am not sure you need a separate spell list for that, but I do think song of healing should be a choice.
Where you can chose:
Song of healing : healing spells.
Song of battle : offensive buff spells
Song of defense : defensive buff spells.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because classes are assumed to be (nominally) balanced. Every feature you don't use (especially a major one like spell swapping) takes up power budget that could have been used on an ability you actually get to use in game and fits your character better, thus making you better able to express your character's identity.

That's one of the main reasons I mostly play with homebrew or just play classless; you can create a much closer mapping of your identity to the mechanics.

I do not believe the game is nearly that balanced on a knife edge that you seem to be suggesting here. To think that any time a player chooses not to use a certain ability means that they are now playing "below their fighting weight" (to use an inaccurate analogy) and thus should be compensated somehow to get themselves back up in balance is not anything WotC has thought of or worry about.

Fighters get Heavy Armor proficiency-- if they don't use it, should they be able to replace it with another feature they do (and believe me, I've seen threads where some people have argued they should, and I disagree wholeheartedly)? Spellcasters have dozens of spells they don't use. Should they be able to strike those spells from their spells list and replace them with other features that they will? Weapon-users have proficiency in hosts of weapons they will never pick up. Should they be able to replace all of those with another feature they will? Where does this nitpicking end? And why is it WotC's job to make it easier for them?

At some point the game would become exactly as you seem to be playing and working yours (congrats, by the way, that's exactly the way I think people should play their game, making it their own!) Where every single little feature or ability is bought piecemeal to create the character you want. Those kinds of game already exist and seem to do well... and if someone (such as yourself) decides to hammer and work D&D into a game that also works like those other games (like Gurps or Hero System)... more power to you and I'm glad it works for you! But I do not think any of us could suggest that this is the design D&D should go or even would go.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem is that if you do that and there's a reason to want other spells you could have in character because you've done your research (or it's just really obvious) essentially your character is playing like an idiot with a fixation. There's a huge difference between a character who doesn't do something that would significantly help their friends and team mates on a quest where their lives are on the line because they can't and one who doesn't do something because they don't want to.

Let's say that for whatever reason you know you will want to cross a body of water half a mile across in the next day or two and you're playing a 9th level ranger. The obvious way across for the whole party is Water Walk (which oddly appears to be only a Primal spell in the playtest packet) - but it is more magical than you visualise your ranger as being.

With a Spells Known ranger you simply don't know Water Walking. End of story.

With a Spells Prepared ranger if you have a long rest and you don't prepare Water Walk you're That Guy. You know the one who's "Just Playing Their Character" when they grief the rest of the party through either deliberate incompetence or sabotage. Water Walking is something you absolutely could do in character if you never change your known spells - it's just you choose not to.

Exactly. It's player ego. It's not a game design flaw.

Which is fine for what it is... and if WotC decides to go back to Spells Known, then that's fine too. But I personally do not believe placating player ego is a valid reason to give for the changing of game rules. But that's just me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Plus, I don't want to play a healer. Don't clutter my finite list of available spells with this. Some people do and thats fine but now all bards MUST be healers. If you could heal, but refuse, you are distinctly not a team player. My 5e bard has a smidgen of healing (1st level only) and a few scrolls. Are you hurt enough to blow a scroll? No? Then take a nap and I will play you a lullaby.

My opinion is that this is a flaw of your table's dynamics and not a flaw of the game design. If your table gets mad at you because you have the functionality to heal but choose not to based on character design and choice... then that's their problem and they have no right to insinuate it is yours.

Noe granted... you're still the one who has to deal with those asshats, so I can understand why you'd prefer the game just not put you in that situation... but "the other players are being asshats when I don't use a class feature I have" I personally suspect is not the strongest of rationales to make in the survey when the time comes. But hey, what do I know? Maybe it is?