HOT TAKE: Spells and Spellcasting in D&D

I wanted to start a discussion about something that have noticed about D&D and see how the community at large perceives it. Ill attach a poll and would love to hear back from anyone kind enough to read this.

Hot Take: There is to much spell casting in D&D 5.5e. It feels like everything gets spell casting in one way or another and we have sacrificed the unique creativity and mechanical diversity on the alter of just make everything a spell. The only classes that should have spellcasting built into the class itself is Wizards, Druids, Rangers, and maybe Artificers. Arcane magic and Nature magic. 

1.) Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks should be drawing power from other worldly sources. I hate that smites are spells now! However that hatred has made me realize that all three of the classes should instead of casting spells gain access to an abilities that do not count as spells. Smites, healing, heck even eldritch blast should not be spells but instead class features that give the class the ability to do those effects. They should have limitations different to magic.

Take the Cleric, Paladin and Warlock spell lists and adapt all the unique to those classes spells into lists of optionally chosen class features that are fueled off the classes central feature. The Warlocks spell slots become charges that allow them to activate abilities. Increase the charges on channel divinity to allow clerics to apply bless, healing, or create a spiritual weapon, or summon spirit guardians. Just let the Paladin smite once per round no action required after a hit with a weapon. NO ONE ELSE CAN SMITE, ONLY PALADINS PLZ. Every smite spell should instead by an optional smite that paladin can do in place of divine smite as a class feature.

2.) Bards, Monks, and Sorcerers should be channeling inner power of the body or spirit. It bothers me to no end that the Sorcerers are just Wizards with a worse spell list and meta magic. Again take all the spells unique to each of these classes and build them into the classes to operate on class features. Make the power they wield mechanically different to the counterparts.

This really come down to there is a difference between power and magic. As it stands now the only real power in D&D is magic. To me a fire Sorcerer should be more like a pyrokinetic and less like a fire mage.

Why should a counter spell stop a Paladin channeling power from a god into a smite? Why should it stop a bard for whispering words of dissidence to you? Why does an antimanic field stop a Cleric for receiving healing aid from a god? These are mechanics that affect the game the exact same for Wizards as they do for Monks and Paladins and that feels weird to me. 

THE MAIN POINT:

What I am saying is that I would prefer if casting spells, channeling otherworldly power, and focusing inner power each had its own fueling source and was limited by different things. It feels strange that all three of those things are fueled by spell slots. Moreover it has led to a point in the game that feels like nearly every single character in every campaign can cast spells in one way or another. That is a bit to much, like everything is magic now.

Clearly none of this is going to happen but I think it illustrates my point that huge portions of the game that could easily function in a unique way are instead all simply spells.

I hope everyone has a lovely day and I hope my hot take doesn't upset anyone to much lol

I don't really agree. Spells are everywhere in D&D because spellcasting is a complete mechanical framework that can represent a lot of abilities: fireballs, spiritual weapons, mind control, telekinesis, really almost anything. If you make a class that has abilities that are similar to spells, you can end up with this weird non-spellcasting spellcaster. This has happened to me in my homebrew experience.

Divine Smite, oddly enough, is an excellent example of why using spells for abilities can work pretty well. If you want an ability that uses an action type to activate and increases in power when you expend more of the resource to use it, that's basically just a spell, so why not make it a spell?

Granted, I think that making almost EVERYTHING a spell is a bit much, but don't think that there should only be three spellcasting classes, especially not when there are a bunch of spellcasting adjacent classes.

Edit: I do think that more classes should have their spellcasting work differently than is typical, like the Psion. A Psion should feel different from a Bard.

I feel ya for sure, I was thinking as I'm writing that I'm over correcting for the issue.

Smites being spells to me just adds a ton of limitations that don't need to be there. When if they weren't spells not only would they be harder to access for non paladins, one couldn't stack one smite on the other. I get why they did it, but IMO it was a step to far and in the wrong direction. Opening the door for other classes that get access to smite spells to be flat out better at it than Paladins. 

I agree and disagree.

It certainly feels like power source should somewhat dictate the mechanics of the "spell-adjacent" abilities that some classes have, and it would definitely be more flavorful if each "spellcasting" class had its own way of doing things... but that brings me to why I ultimately disagree.

5e (and 5.5e) is trying pretty hard not to beat you over the head with rules, and there are already a lot of rules. Imagine how much more space it would take up to have 3-4 different "spell-like ability" rules and how much harder it would be for new players to get into the game. Then there's the problem of where do you actually delineate? You have your way of separating the different types of casting, but someone who says that each of 3 magic sources (arcane, divine, nature) should be how they are separated would be just as justified.

In short, if the feature is already 90% a spell, you might as well just keep it simple and make it a spell.

I both agree and disagree. I disagree in creating new sources of power, they tried that in ealier editions and it was a mess.

I agree that they have effectively been trying to turn every class and subclass into a spellcaster, and have reduced the uniqueness of each by making it too easy to obtain spells from other classes.

Especially with feats giving access to spellcasting (in addition to Soooo many species having innate spellcasting), now literally every character can start with spells - even those of martial classes. The single most common background used by my players is Sage, to be able to start with cleric or wizard spells. Every class, even Fighter, has spellcasting subclasses.

It used to be that if you wanted to play a spellcasting Fighter, you needed to multi-class (FTR/Wizard, FTR/Cleric, FTR/Druid, etc.). Now, your species grants a couple of spells, your origin feat grants spells, then despite picking Fighter... your subclass gives you even more spells, and you can still multiclass on top of that to add even more spells.

They are clearly trying to turn every character into a spellcaster.

So, on that I agree. 

Counterpoint. 

This cuts down on, "It is not a spell it is a class feature!" arguments when in Anti-Magic fields or other such things are in effect, and believe me, i have heard people argue that the feature that lets them teleport 30 feet or transform from a gnome to a bear is not magic. 
Defining all magic as "Spells" is just cleaner, if I think rather limited  in imagination. I would love for magic to be expressed in various waves, and even dabbled with a buiding a class that used a lot of magic but most of it wasn't spell casting. (It was basically the test concept where clerics had a pool of points to cause divine effects from the oneD&D playtest but expanded.)

I think the way it is now is easier for people to understand as things that had complicated spell like effects, are now just spells that can be looked up and examined. 
Think digital for a moment. If you are looking for an effect that has complicated use cases, but it is in the middle of a text block for the class, that is harder to find in the moment then "Search spell name."

Yes, there are a TON of spellcasting classes and subclasses. Making 3+ entirely new systems to accomplish very similar effects to spellcasting is not the solution, though. And Bards are technically arcane spellcasters, so there's no reason they should have their own system.

You know how everyone complains about the martial-caster divide? Now imagine everyone complaining about the spell slot versus "innate magic pool" divide.

Edit: That poll does not feel nearly comprehensive enough.

This is the kind of concept that sounds good in the abstract, but typically falls apart one way or the other in the execution when it comes to game systems, particularly ones on the hard end of the spectrum. If the systems are going to be strongly asymmetric, then it will pretty much inevitably shake out into a tier system where some get notably better performance than others, where greater disparity of mechanics will likely correlate to greater disparity of performance in practice.

One of the strengths of the present spell system is that it largely standardizes effect strength- there’s x, y, and z teleport spells, 3rd level DPR is clustered around this benchmark while 5th level is around the other, etc. Trying to replicate that while creating distinct systems is a case of either repeatedly reinventing the wheel- largely defeating the exercise- or trying to thread the needle of somehow balancing significantly different performance capabilities to still end up with enough parity that you don’t end up with “trap” picks and/or picks that have a clear lead in several elements.

I've seen a lot of critics of DND say "X class should have Invocation-likes/maneuver-likes/non-spell-likes", and all I can say is:It'll still create tiers. So ending the divide will simply create more divides, & more ambitious attempts to one-up.

Well, I can only speak to my opinion, as there are millions of people who play this game and they are all entitled to play whatever version of it they prefer. But yeah, I think you do make a good point, to a certain extent. For starters, this is a game about an imaginary fantasy world, so magic should be considered part of the normal fabric of the universe. So it makes sense that magic would be as pervasive in the game world as technology is in our world. And high-magic adventures can be really fun. But sometimes it's also fun to play a low-magic adventure that's more gritty and survivalist, where the players have to rely solely on their skills and wits to survive. And rather than a low-magic adventure detracting from the role of a spellcaster, rather I think it enhances the status and responsibility of the sole spellcaster. And yes, there is a point to be made that divine magic and arcane magic are two completely different sources of magic that may deserve two separate game systems to adjudicate. But I worry that that would simply complicate and slow down the gameplay at the table. 

So my answer is what it usually is: The "rules" are nothing more than a framework upon which we each build our own games.  Each DM, with the consensus and agreement of the players at their table, establishes how their particular game-world works, applies those established rules that support that game-world, and homebrews the rest. Does that require a bit of extra work on the DM's part? Yes. Yes it does. But that's part of the fun of being a DM. 

Anyways, just my 2 c.p.

Nah.

-Bards are sociable scholars and should have features tied to both Int and Cha, preparing spells like a Wizard (see below)
-Clerics use holy magic and should be able to channel their magic according to a limited spell list focused exclusively on buffs, debuffs, healing, and radiant/necrotic damage
-Druids use nature magic and should have their own spell list, only shared with Rangers to a degree
-Sorcerers should have limited spell availability but be able to tweak their spells in various ways (Metamagic options are too limited as-is)
-Warlocks should vary wildly in terms of gameplay depending on what pact they enter into, with different pacts granting different types of gifts
-Wizards should go back to preparing spells the old-fashioned way; if you want to cast Magic Missile twice that day, prepare it in two slots
-Paladins should be a Fighter subclass and get some Cleric spells and smites
-Rangers should be a Fighter subclass and get some Druid spells and additional nature survivability
-Artificers shouldn't get any spells, only create artifacts to do stuff for them, go full tinkerer

As long as we're coming up with weird ways to confuse the general masses when they try to play the game, anyway.