D&D 5E Why are we still stuck with divine casters knowing all spells?

[Li Shenron]

Checking the number of spells known by class in the current packet...

A level 1 Cleric knows 15-16 1st-level spells.
A level 1 Druid knows 12 1st-level spells.
A level 1 Paladin knows 9 1st-level spells.
A level 1 Ranger knows 6 1st-level spells.
A level 1 Wizard knows 3-4 1st level spells.

Yes, the Wizard can add more spells to the spellbook, but this depends on DM's kindness of letting her find them during the adventures.

Why do we still have this nonsense that divine casters automatically know ALL possible spells (but ironically, not cantrips, the smallest ones)?

In the hands of a beginner, having to pick from so many spells when playing a Cle or Dru is a huge burden (I'd say also for a Paladin player, 9 to choose from at 1st level??).

In the hands of an expert who adds supplements, it can be easily exploited to create quasi-Wizards in armor with double HP and better combat stats.

Why can't we have the same system for all casters, i.e. a fixed number of spells known every new level, to choose from the class spell list, and an option to learn additional spells at a cost just like the Wizard copies scrolls into the spellbook?

 

[delericho]

Why do we still have this nonsense that divine casters automatically know ALL possible spells (but ironically, not cantrips, the smallest ones)?

Good question. Let Clerics pick a smallish subset of spells to learn (possibly with the ability to learn others in-play), and you get rid of "all Clerics look the same, regardless of deity" for free.

In the simple version of the game, low-level (at least) Clerics should in fact get a small fixed subset of the spells. One less choice to make in char gen, and considerably less knowledge required just to play the character.

 

[Rune]

I'd prefer to see each cleric list further narrowed to a specific list per deity. Maybe four or five per level. If that were the case, it wouldn't bother me at all if clerics had access to that whole list; it would be a very small list.

This would do a lot to define the flavor of a cleric, while helping to reign them in. In theory, the wizard should be the most flexible spellcaster out there, given time to prepare. The cleric's schtick isn't traditionally flexibility; it's divinity.

I suppose such a cleric might be allowed to add divine spells to his/her prayerbook, much as a wizard can add to his/her spellbook, but there would be prohibited spells, as well.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

We could call these subsets, "Domains" perhaps?

 

[Tobold]

Isn't "Why are we still stuck with ..." the general theme of D&D Next? I thought the very idea of this edition is to bring back stuff from previous editions of the game. As opposed to 4th edition, in which every caster (and non-caster) has the same number of powers.

For this particular feature I think we have to thank the people who think that each class should work with a very different rule-set, to make each class unique. Class balance is a dirty word for some people.

 

[delericho]

I'd prefer to see each cleric list further narrowed to a specific list per deity.

The only issue I have with that is that it makes replacing the in-built pantheon that much harder - suddenly it's not enough to just rename the deities, but you have to provide custom lists of spells for each deity, too.

Now, they could get around this by reverting to the 2nd Ed approach of 'spheres' for Clerical spells. That actually worked quite well. But it still had the problem that, by the time the Priest's Spell Compendium was published, every Cleric had hundreds of possible spells to choose from.

 

[Li Shenron]

For this particular feature I think we have to thank the people who think that each class should work with a very different rule-set, to make each class unique. Class balance is a dirty word for some people.

No, it is not this.

 

[TerraDave]

Its surprising, especially we know have dieties/types of clerics...and I thought they provided some spells.

One thing with spheres a or a similar system...you still want to give the player some choice over particular spells, maybe only a few, but I remember from 2E and you could have a cleric that, say, couldn't heal...this may have made sense conceptually, but was a big problem in play.

 

[delericho]

One thing with spheres a or a similar system...you still want to give the player some choice over particular spells

I agree. Outside of the basic rules, the game should err on the side of giving players too much choice.

I remember from 2E and you could have a cleric that, say, couldn't heal...this may have made sense conceptually, but was a big problem in play.

However, while I sympathise with the problem, I would much rather they remove the need (perceived or otherwise) to have a Cleric to provide healing. Ideally, every character should have at least some means of healing available, there should certainly be at least several classes able to provide that role, and the game should be entirely playable even if nobody chooses to play a Cleric (or plays a "can't heal" Cleric).

This notion that you must have a Cleric and that the Cleric must be able to provide healing really needs to die.

 

[Kinak]

Divine spells in 3rd Edition had the same problem as wild shape forms. Every book they released would just automatically add more options to the classes without any cost or justification.

We've been through this enough times that we should know to have the classes expand gracefully with splatbooks. Suddenly adding daily options without an in-character justification or expenditure of resources doesn't do that.

Cheers!
Kinak