D&D (2024) Would 4 spell lists work in D&D (maybe 6e)?

[MechaTarrasque]

I have been half-heartedly following the Pathfinder 2 playtest announcements, and I saw something about it having 4 spell lists (Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital) and it looks like full casters would get access to 2 lists (and maybe half casters get 1?).

It is probably too late in 5e for anything like this, but, assuming it goes over well in Pathfinder, would you want something like this for 6e (assuming there is a 6e of course)?

And, if we assumed that the 5e classes would be the starting 6e classes, how would you want this divided up?

 

[jgsugden]

This is way too vague of a concept to give it a thumbs up or down. We'd need more details to provide an informed opinion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have been half-heartedly following the Pathfinder 2 playtest announcements, and I saw something about it having 4 spell lists (Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital)

I've been playing D&D too long: I have no problem with the traditional 8 schools, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around those 4.

and it looks like full casters would get access to 2 lists (and maybe half casters get 1?).
It is probably too late in 5e for anything like this, but, assuming it goes over well in Pathfinder, would you want something like this for 6e (assuming there is a 6e of course)?

IDK. Like 5e, it seems to put all the emphasis on magic. It could, potentially, be a fairly powerful way of organizing things: you could have 6 kinds of full casters & 4 kinds of half casters, for a total of 10 relatively distinct classes, defined fairly simply from only 4 lists.

And, if we assumed that the 5e classes would be the starting 6e classes, how would you want this divided up?

Lessee, 5e has Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, for full casters, and Paladin, Ranger, EK & AT for half-casters, with Monks quasi-casters, so it'd very nearly fit, maybe:

Bard: Mental/Vital
Cleric: Spiritual/Vital
Druid: Material/Vital
Sorcerer: Material/Spiritual
Warlock: Mental/Spiritual
Wizard: Material/Mental

EK: Material
AT: Mental
Pally: Vital
Ranger: Spiritual

?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I've been playing D&D too long: I have no problem with the traditional 8 schools, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around those 4.

IDK. Like 5e, it seems to put all the emphasis on magic. It could, potentially, be a fairly powerful way of organizing things: you could have 6 kinds of full casters & 4 kinds of half casters, for a total of 10 relatively distinct classes, defined fairly simply from only 4 lists.

Lessee, 5e has Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, for full casters, and Paladin, Ranger, EK & AT for half-casters, with Monks quasi-casters, so it'd very nearly fit, maybe:

Bard: Mental/Vital
Cleric: Spiritual/Vital
Druid: Material/Vital
Sorcerer: Material/Spiritual
Warlock: Mental/Spiritual
Wizard: Material/Mental

EK: Material
AT: Mental
Pally: Vital
Ranger: Spiritual

?

My thoughts are similar, the idea makes for a nice thought experiment (and a nice way to limit individual magic user's narrative power), but I am not sure I would be ready to use it. It does kind of make it seem like "martial" is equal to a spell list (1/2 full caster). Part of me wonders if that is truth in advertising or sad (or both).

 

[mellored]

Meh. I prefer an open, flexible list. That way each class can come up with its own categories.

Invisibility because you are light wizard and can bend it around you.
Invisibility because you are an enchantment wizard and you blind others to your presence.
Invisibility because you are an air wizard, and turn yourself transparent like air.
Invisibility because you are a time wizard, and shift yourself into the future.
ect....


I mean, should healing be vitality or material? What if they took psychic damage?
Where would conjure disease fit?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, should healing be vitality or material?

I strongly suspect 'vitality.'

What if they took psychic damage?

Don't see why that'd make a difference, damage reduces your overall vitality, no?

Where would conjure disease fit?

Do you mean cure disease? Vitality. The reverse, too, presumably.

 

[mellored]

Don't see why that'd make a difference, damage reduces your overall vitality, no?

But it was mental damage. So shouldn't you need mental spells to recover from it?

Do you mean cure disease? Vitality. The reverse, too, presumably.

No, i mean conjure disease.
Conjuring is material, disease is vitality. So it has 2 categories.


What if a spell has all 4 catagories?
You pull the image of the enemies greatest fear from their mind, sacrificing your own vitality, and turn your spirit into a physical creature of that shape.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But it was mental damage. So shouldn't you need mental spells to recover from it?

Not any more than you'd need Material spells to recover from a being hit by a sword, because it's made of a material.

No, i mean conjure disease.
Conjuring is material, disease is vitality. So it has 2 categories.

Sounds like the hypothetical spell just doesn't need to be added.

What if a spell has all 4 catagories?

Then the designer arbitrarily puts it in the one he feels fits best, I suppose.

 

[mellored]

Sounds like the hypothetical spell just doesn't need to be added.

"The spell doesn't fit in a category so it shouldn't exist" is exactly the thing I don't like.

 

[AmerginLiath]

It sounds like someone broke out their 2nd Edition AD&D books and looked at the Spell Spheres (technically a “1.5e” system, as it appeared in an earlier form in the Dragonlance Adventures HC), just using different names since TSR stuff that didn’t carry over into 3e isn’t SRD/OGL. THey even seemingly have Major and Minor Access by another name.