I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I get that, but the distinction being "official" is still effectively meaningless since there is plenty of overlap of spells appearing on multiple lists. What's the point of saying the Light cantrip is Arcane or divine when it's both? What's the point of Cure Wounds being Divine or Primal when it's both?
The spells aren't what separate the arcane, divine, and primal categories. The spellcastersare what make the difference. Clerics and paladins get their magic from belief, hence divine. Warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers brute-force the magic system, hence arcane. Druids and rangers get their magic from nature or the elements, hence primal. There is spell overlap because these difference magical sources can produce similar effects, but there have been distinctions based on those sources here and there for lore reasons.
And as I have explained, they have already made this kind of distinction implicitly every time they bunch warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers together, and every time they bunch clerics and paladins together, and every time they bunch druids and rangers together. Now instead of having a staff of power require attunement by a wizard, sorcerer, or warlock, it just requires attunement by an arcane spellcaster.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I get that, but the distinction being "official" is still effectively meaningless since there is plenty of overlap of spells appearing on multiple lists. What's the point of saying the Light cantrip is Arcane or divine when it's both? What's the point of Cure Wounds being Divine or Primal when it's both?
The spells aren't what separate the arcane, divine, and primal categories. The spellcastersare what make the difference. Clerics and paladins get their magic from belief, hence divine. Warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers brute-force the magic system, hence arcane. Druids and rangers get their magic from nature or the elements, hence primal. There is spell overlap because these difference magical sources can produce similar effects, but there have been distinctions based on those sources here and there for lore reasons.
And as I have explained, they have already made this kind of distinction implicitly every time they bunch warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers together, and every time they bunch clerics and paladins together, and every time they bunch druids and rangers together. Now instead of having a staff of power require attunement by a wizard, sorcerer, or warlock, it just requires attunement by an arcane spellcaster.
Elegance is the goal that I'm seeing here.
I just don't see that really coming up often enough to be a problem that needed fixing. "Attunement by a cleric or paladin" works just as well as "attunement by a divine caster" in my book.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I get that, but the distinction being "official" is still effectively meaningless since there is plenty of overlap of spells appearing on multiple lists. What's the point of saying the Light cantrip is Arcane or divine when it's both? What's the point of Cure Wounds being Divine or Primal when it's both?
I believe the change isn’t to add new definitions to spells, but more so to streamline ability descriptions in the future. Say, for example, a new ability lets you pick any spell from the wizard, warlock, sorcerer, or bard spell list. Instead of having to say all those classes, the ability can just say “pick an Arcane spell.” It could also introduce some cool ideas for new subclasses. Something like a nature-based wizard that can pick a limited number of “Primal” spells.
I’m also partial to PF2e, which has the same thing, so, of course I’m excited for the new system.
Considering Humans, Tiefling and Ardlings can all choose Medium or Small, I certainly hope they're planning to add reasons why being Small might be advantageous. By the current 5e rules, being Small is almost universally a bad thing, giving Disadvantage with Heavy weapons and making you worse at grappling and shoving. Right now the only benefit to being Small comes from being able to fit in a space that might be a squeeze for Medium characters, which is situational at best. Otherwise, only benefit I can think of is being about to use Medium creatures as a mount.
I'm also not too keen on Humans being Small, as that's just a halfling. Are young children becoming grizzled adventurers now? A Human counting as Small while a Dwarf is still Medium feels so bizarre to me.
Secondly, I'm curious if they're planning to remove Somatic and Verbal components, or otherwise combine them into a singular 'obvious spell' tag or something. The inclusion of Common Sign Language on the list of standard languages brings up the awkward question of whether or not sign language would count as a Verbal component, and if not, why not? WotC is bound to get accused of ableism with that one.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I get that, but the distinction being "official" is still effectively meaningless since there is plenty of overlap of spells appearing on multiple lists. What's the point of saying the Light cantrip is Arcane or divine when it's both? What's the point of Cure Wounds being Divine or Primal when it's both?
The spells aren't what separate the arcane, divine, and primal categories. The spellcastersare what make the difference. Clerics and paladins get their magic from belief, hence divine. Warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers brute-force the magic system, hence arcane. Druids and rangers get their magic from nature or the elements, hence primal. There is spell overlap because these difference magical sources can produce similar effects, but there have been distinctions based on those sources here and there for lore reasons.
And as I have explained, they have already made this kind of distinction implicitly every time they bunch warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers together, and every time they bunch clerics and paladins together, and every time they bunch druids and rangers together. Now instead of having a staff of power require attunement by a wizard, sorcerer, or warlock, it just requires attunement by an arcane spellcaster.
Elegance is the goal that I'm seeing here.
I just don't see that really coming up often enough to be a problem that needed fixing. "Attunement by a cleric or paladin" works just as well as "attunement by a divine caster" in my book.
There are some very important but subtle things that these divisions do. Take note that Eldritch Blast is NOT on the Arcane list. That means that you can't pick up that spell from Magic Initiate since it would be on the Warlock exclusive spell instead of under Arcane.
First, making the Bard fully arcane rather than having an eclectic spell list seems to reduce the uniqueness of the class.
Second, the way flight works for Ardlings. If you always need to be on the ground at the end of each turn, it isn't flight, just enhanced jumping. I can understand game balance reasons, but in that case, just give them something else rather than super jumping that you call flight.
Hopefully no one gets the idea to move Warlocks to the same manner of spellcasting as wizards and sorcerers.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I get that, but the distinction being "official" is still effectively meaningless since there is plenty of overlap of spells appearing on multiple lists. What's the point of saying the Light cantrip is Arcane or divine when it's both? What's the point of Cure Wounds being Divine or Primal when it's both?
In previous editions of the game, there were differences between how spells worked when they were cast using different types of magic. The Light spell (which was comparable to 5e's Daylight spell), for example, in 2nd Edition could be cast by arcane caster at a range of 180', whereas the divine version of the spell had a range of 360'. The divine version could also be reversed (equivalent to the 5e Darkness spell), but the arcane version could not. An arcane caster had to learn a separate spell to create magical Darkness, which had a smaller effect radius compared to the divine version.
I don't expect differences like that to come back, but asking this question is like asking what is the point of a short sword being on the rogue's weapon proficiency list and on the monk's proficiency list - its on both lists because it is something that both of those classes would typically learn to use. Likewise, healing injuries is something that both divine casters and primal casters would learn to do. Its like the difference between a doctor and a veterinarian - both are equally capable of treating the wound on a person or animal as the process is largely the same, they just have more experience with one of them. The spell lists are separate because primal casters have a greater focus on the natural world (plants, beasts, and the elements), while divine casters have a greater focus on civilization (people, objects), and arcane casters focus on manipulation and destruction (illusions, transformations, explosions).
First, making the Bard fully arcane rather than having an eclectic spell list seems to reduce the uniqueness of the class.
Second, the way flight works for Ardlings. If you always need to be on the ground at the end of each turn, it isn't flight, just enhanced jumping. I can understand game balance reasons, but in that case, just give them something else rather than super jumping that you call flight.
Hopefully no one gets the idea to move Warlocks to the same manner of spellcasting as wizards and sorcerers.
To be fair, we have no idea what spells Bards will have access to considering we haven't seen the Class UA yet. We already know from the video that classes will still have lists of their own.
Me too, except for humans now getting 2 feats at level 1 by default along with free inspiration once a day, and Haflings getting a lucky for free by default along with a second feat.
Me too, except for humans now getting 2 feats at level 1 by default along with free inspiration once a day, and Haflings getting a lucky for free by default along with a second feat.
Another concern I have as far as the spell list go is one of the major selling points for some subclasses is the expanded spell list they get. It feels like WotC is trying to drain the individual personality out of the subclasses.
First, making the Bard fully arcane rather than having an eclectic spell list seems to reduce the uniqueness of the class.
I get what you’re saying but, let’s be honest, nobody plays bards for their unique spells. Vicious Mockery is cool and all, but it isn’t class defining like eldritch blast is for warlocks. Most people pick bards for the bardic inspiration and the fun roleplay aspect of it.
Man, I'm not sure how I feel about expanding critical success to skill checks. If you were a DM and someone asked to attempt something ridiculous, you could give them a roll and just set the DC stupidly high so they'd always fail.
But you wouldn't do that. If there was no chance of success, you wouldn't call for a roll. Similarly, if there was no chance of failure, you wouldn't call for a roll (Opening a door, go ahead and open it, no roll required. Opening a door that is stuck, make a str check. Opening a door that has been welded shut, and sealed by ancient runes of power, you can't, no roll required.) Rolls are only supposed to be when there is a chance for success or failure.
Not necessarily, there's the old example of a bard demanding the king hand over his claim to the throne and rolling a nat 20. Should that work? Absolutely not, but as the DM you can use the nat 20 as an excuse to not have the arrested for attempted sedition. Under the new rules the bard is the king now.
First, making the Bard fully arcane rather than having an eclectic spell list seems to reduce the uniqueness of the class.
I get what you’re saying but, let’s be honest, nobody plays bards for their unique spells. Vicious Mockery is cool and all, but it isn’t class defining like eldritch blast is for warlocks. Most people pick bards for the bardic inspiration and the fun roleplay aspect of it.
Half the time someone in my group picks a bard, they do so to be a secondary healer in addition to the other benefits the class offers.
Me too, except for humans now getting 2 feats at level 1 by default along with free inspiration once a day, and Haflings getting a lucky for free by default along with a second feat.
Halflings were already Lucky so no change there.
Halfling luck allowed them to reroll ones, nothing else. Now they get a minimum of 2 free advantage rolls a day, more at higher levels, plus an extra feat.
Another concern I have as far as the spell list go is one of the major selling points for some subclasses is the expanded spell list they get. It feels like WotC is trying to drain the individual personality out of the subclasses.
To quote the UA:
In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we’ll show how Classes usethese listsand how aClassor SubclassmightgainSpells from another list.
It seems like expanded spell lists for subclasses are still a thing, we're just not sure what it will look like as of yet.
Me too, except for humans now getting 2 feats at level 1 by default along with free inspiration once a day, and Haflings getting a lucky for free by default along with a second feat.
Halflings were already Lucky so no change there.
Halfling luck allowed them to reroll ones, nothing else. Now they get a minimum of 2 free advantage rolls a day, more at higher levels, plus an extra feat.
Man, I'm not sure how I feel about expanding critical success to skill checks. If you were a DM and someone asked to attempt something ridiculous, you could give them a roll and just set the DC stupidly high so they'd always fail. But with these rules, you kind of have to say "No, you can't do that" to avoid someone jumping a 50 ft chasm in a single bound, or other such 'impossible' feats because now there's always a 5% chance they'll succeed. Unless I've read the rules wrong, of course.
I also am not sure how to feel about removing critical hits from spells. One the one hand, most spells were saving throws anyway, so it doesn't matter as much and it helps provide some bonus for martials; one the other hand spells with spell attack rolls were already kinda bad in comparison to saving throw spells, so removing their ability to crit makes them even worse. Are they removing Spell Attack rolls from the game entirely?
Success doesn't have to mean they make the jump; it could mean they don't die in the attempt or suffer whatever reasonable consequences they could expect under normal circumstances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The spells aren't what separate the arcane, divine, and primal categories. The spellcasters are what make the difference. Clerics and paladins get their magic from belief, hence divine. Warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers brute-force the magic system, hence arcane. Druids and rangers get their magic from nature or the elements, hence primal. There is spell overlap because these difference magical sources can produce similar effects, but there have been distinctions based on those sources here and there for lore reasons.
And as I have explained, they have already made this kind of distinction implicitly every time they bunch warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers together, and every time they bunch clerics and paladins together, and every time they bunch druids and rangers together. Now instead of having a staff of power require attunement by a wizard, sorcerer, or warlock, it just requires attunement by an arcane spellcaster.
Elegance is the goal that I'm seeing here.
I just don't see that really coming up often enough to be a problem that needed fixing. "Attunement by a cleric or paladin" works just as well as "attunement by a divine caster" in my book.
I believe the change isn’t to add new definitions to spells, but more so to streamline ability descriptions in the future. Say, for example, a new ability lets you pick any spell from the wizard, warlock, sorcerer, or bard spell list. Instead of having to say all those classes, the ability can just say “pick an Arcane spell.” It could also introduce some cool ideas for new subclasses. Something like a nature-based wizard that can pick a limited number of “Primal” spells.
I’m also partial to PF2e, which has the same thing, so, of course I’m excited for the new system.
Considering Humans, Tiefling and Ardlings can all choose Medium or Small, I certainly hope they're planning to add reasons why being Small might be advantageous. By the current 5e rules, being Small is almost universally a bad thing, giving Disadvantage with Heavy weapons and making you worse at grappling and shoving. Right now the only benefit to being Small comes from being able to fit in a space that might be a squeeze for Medium characters, which is situational at best. Otherwise, only benefit I can think of is being about to use Medium creatures as a mount.
I'm also not too keen on Humans being Small, as that's just a halfling. Are young children becoming grizzled adventurers now? A Human counting as Small while a Dwarf is still Medium feels so bizarre to me.
Secondly, I'm curious if they're planning to remove Somatic and Verbal components, or otherwise combine them into a singular 'obvious spell' tag or something. The inclusion of Common Sign Language on the list of standard languages brings up the awkward question of whether or not sign language would count as a Verbal component, and if not, why not? WotC is bound to get accused of ableism with that one.
There are some very important but subtle things that these divisions do. Take note that Eldritch Blast is NOT on the Arcane list. That means that you can't pick up that spell from Magic Initiate since it would be on the Warlock exclusive spell instead of under Arcane.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not a fan of 2 things.
First, making the Bard fully arcane rather than having an eclectic spell list seems to reduce the uniqueness of the class.
Second, the way flight works for Ardlings. If you always need to be on the ground at the end of each turn, it isn't flight, just enhanced jumping. I can understand game balance reasons, but in that case, just give them something else rather than super jumping that you call flight.
Hopefully no one gets the idea to move Warlocks to the same manner of spellcasting as wizards and sorcerers.
In previous editions of the game, there were differences between how spells worked when they were cast using different types of magic. The Light spell (which was comparable to 5e's Daylight spell), for example, in 2nd Edition could be cast by arcane caster at a range of 180', whereas the divine version of the spell had a range of 360'. The divine version could also be reversed (equivalent to the 5e Darkness spell), but the arcane version could not. An arcane caster had to learn a separate spell to create magical Darkness, which had a smaller effect radius compared to the divine version.
I don't expect differences like that to come back, but asking this question is like asking what is the point of a short sword being on the rogue's weapon proficiency list and on the monk's proficiency list - its on both lists because it is something that both of those classes would typically learn to use. Likewise, healing injuries is something that both divine casters and primal casters would learn to do. Its like the difference between a doctor and a veterinarian - both are equally capable of treating the wound on a person or animal as the process is largely the same, they just have more experience with one of them. The spell lists are separate because primal casters have a greater focus on the natural world (plants, beasts, and the elements), while divine casters have a greater focus on civilization (people, objects), and arcane casters focus on manipulation and destruction (illusions, transformations, explosions).
To be fair, we have no idea what spells Bards will have access to considering we haven't seen the Class UA yet. We already know from the video that classes will still have lists of their own.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Me too, except for humans now getting 2 feats at level 1 by default along with free inspiration once a day, and Haflings getting a lucky for free by default along with a second feat.
Halflings were already Lucky so no change there.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Another concern I have as far as the spell list go is one of the major selling points for some subclasses is the expanded spell list they get. It feels like WotC is trying to drain the individual personality out of the subclasses.
I get what you’re saying but, let’s be honest, nobody plays bards for their unique spells. Vicious Mockery is cool and all, but it isn’t class defining like eldritch blast is for warlocks. Most people pick bards for the bardic inspiration and the fun roleplay aspect of it.
So creatures don’t crit anymore - only player characters do. Interesting….
Not necessarily, there's the old example of a bard demanding the king hand over his claim to the throne and rolling a nat 20. Should that work? Absolutely not, but as the DM you can use the nat 20 as an excuse to not have the arrested for attempted sedition. Under the new rules the bard is the king now.
Half the time someone in my group picks a bard, they do so to be a secondary healer in addition to the other benefits the class offers.
H
Halfling luck allowed them to reroll ones, nothing else. Now they get a minimum of 2 free advantage rolls a day, more at higher levels, plus an extra feat.
To quote the UA:
It seems like expanded spell lists for subclasses are still a thing, we're just not sure what it will look like as of yet.
I would rather have the unlimited rerolls.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Success doesn't have to mean they make the jump; it could mean they don't die in the attempt or suffer whatever reasonable consequences they could expect under normal circumstances.