I'm relatively knew to the online DND community so if this has already been judged in public opinion court I apologize.
If One DND is going the route of removing class spell lists, not a big fan but it does make things more streamlined, then wouldn't it make sense to give each branch of magic multiple casters? For me warlocks and clerics mirror each other and could easily use a "higher power" spell list with a few spell and flavor changes. Sorcerers have always made sense to me to be with druids as the nature magicians, one out of control and one with command of their magic. And then for arcane, you have wizards, the studious learners, and bards, the street level searchers of knowledge. They all kind of pair up in interesting ways. Each branch would also then have a dedicated half caster with paladins, rangers, and artificers (though I know that class has some weird legality things).
Anyways I know it would be a bigger reworking of the classes then it seems like they're doing and might end up even more unpopular than I'm imagining, but to my logical ocd brain it makes so much sense. Lemme know your thoughts!
That's basically what they've done. Clerics and Paladins share the Divine list, for example. Druids and Rangers have the Primal list. Etc etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Right, but that's just one full caster and one half caster for divine and primal. Meanwhile, the arcane spell list is shared by three full casters, a half caster, and the warlock. In our current campaign I have a player playing wizard, sorcerer, and warlock. If we were in one Dnd there'd be a lot of overlap in spell choice. Dividing up the full casters(and warlock) more evenly between all three lists would lead to a lesser chance of that happening.
Right, but that's just one full caster and one half caster for divine and primal. Meanwhile, the arcane spell list is shared by three full casters, a half caster, and the warlock. In our current campaign I have a player playing wizard, sorcerer, and warlock. If we were in one Dnd there'd be a lot of overlap in spell choice. Dividing up the full casters(and warlock) more evenly between all three lists would lead to a lesser chance of that happening.
There's already a lot of overlap in your group, because they've all chosen to run Arcane casters. If that was a real problem, it'd already be evident.
Oh! I'm not saying it's a problem. More a thought experiment. Hypothesis: spreading out the casters between the three lists would allow for more variety and I was wondering if others would agree or disagree. Currently if they add a lvl 8 spell to the divine or primal list, it is only one class that gets it each. Whereas adding a similar spell to the arcane list adds it to four classes.
In following this idea out, I could easily see sorcerer using the primal list as it seems to thematically fit for an innate caster who is using their natural internal magic. Obviously, some spells and flavor in the list would have to be adjusted.
In the same vein, with a little changing of the list, I could see warlocks using a higher power list similar to the divine. Clerics cast by praying to a higher power, warlocks cast by making a pact with a higher power.
Wizards and bards round it out with the arcane list. Each list is the even with two full casters and one half caster. Balanced as all things should be.
It's not that it's any problem the way it's currently designed. I just thought it was a fun idea.
Ohhh, that's getting dangerously close to 4e territory where every power source needed every role filled. I think they'd stay away from it on those grounds alone.
Oh really? I skipped that one. Played 3.5 took a break and am now coming back with 5. Wouldn't want them to go back to an edition most people seem to think badly of. Plus I figure subclasses will eventually pull from the other lists anyways.
Oh really? I skipped that one. Played 3.5 took a break and am now coming back with 5. Wouldn't want them to go back to an edition most people seem to think badly of. Plus I figure subclasses will eventually pull from the other lists anyways.
Yeah, they had power sources, primal, divine, psionic, etc. Then there were roles: striker, controller, etc. So, a barbarian was a primal striker, while a sorcerer was an arcane striker (iirc).
It ended up when they introduced a new power source, it was like that had to tick all the boxes and fill every role for every power source. It ended up a little too balanced and many of the characters felt pretty same-y. Just different flavor text on very similar effects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm relatively knew to the online DND community so if this has already been judged in public opinion court I apologize.
If One DND is going the route of removing class spell lists, not a big fan but it does make things more streamlined, then wouldn't it make sense to give each branch of magic multiple casters? For me warlocks and clerics mirror each other and could easily use a "higher power" spell list with a few spell and flavor changes. Sorcerers have always made sense to me to be with druids as the nature magicians, one out of control and one with command of their magic. And then for arcane, you have wizards, the studious learners, and bards, the street level searchers of knowledge. They all kind of pair up in interesting ways. Each branch would also then have a dedicated half caster with paladins, rangers, and artificers (though I know that class has some weird legality things).
Anyways I know it would be a bigger reworking of the classes then it seems like they're doing and might end up even more unpopular than I'm imagining, but to my logical ocd brain it makes so much sense. Lemme know your thoughts!
That's basically what they've done. Clerics and Paladins share the Divine list, for example. Druids and Rangers have the Primal list. Etc etc.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Right, but that's just one full caster and one half caster for divine and primal. Meanwhile, the arcane spell list is shared by three full casters, a half caster, and the warlock. In our current campaign I have a player playing wizard, sorcerer, and warlock. If we were in one Dnd there'd be a lot of overlap in spell choice. Dividing up the full casters(and warlock) more evenly between all three lists would lead to a lesser chance of that happening.
There's already a lot of overlap in your group, because they've all chosen to run Arcane casters. If that was a real problem, it'd already be evident.
I’m interested in learning more about this. They have essentially accomplished.
reworking of the classes
https://thebackrooms2.com
Oh! I'm not saying it's a problem. More a thought experiment. Hypothesis: spreading out the casters between the three lists would allow for more variety and I was wondering if others would agree or disagree. Currently if they add a lvl 8 spell to the divine or primal list, it is only one class that gets it each. Whereas adding a similar spell to the arcane list adds it to four classes.
In following this idea out, I could easily see sorcerer using the primal list as it seems to thematically fit for an innate caster who is using their natural internal magic. Obviously, some spells and flavor in the list would have to be adjusted.
In the same vein, with a little changing of the list, I could see warlocks using a higher power list similar to the divine. Clerics cast by praying to a higher power, warlocks cast by making a pact with a higher power.
Wizards and bards round it out with the arcane list. Each list is the even with two full casters and one half caster. Balanced as all things should be.
It's not that it's any problem the way it's currently designed. I just thought it was a fun idea.
Ohhh, that's getting dangerously close to 4e territory where every power source needed every role filled. I think they'd stay away from it on those grounds alone.
Oh really? I skipped that one. Played 3.5 took a break and am now coming back with 5. Wouldn't want them to go back to an edition most people seem to think badly of. Plus I figure subclasses will eventually pull from the other lists anyways.
Yeah, they had power sources, primal, divine, psionic, etc. Then there were roles: striker, controller, etc. So, a barbarian was a primal striker, while a sorcerer was an arcane striker (iirc).
It ended up when they introduced a new power source, it was like that had to tick all the boxes and fill every role for every power source. It ended up a little too balanced and many of the characters felt pretty same-y. Just different flavor text on very similar effects.