If you look at any set of statistics about players in D&D, you will discover
High level play is rare.
High level has a reputation for being hard to DM, hard to play, and unbalanced.
These observations have been true for every edition of D&D.
Now, if we look for what might cause these problems, there's really only one possible answer: it has to be spellcasters. A 20th level fighter or rogue doesn't really play hugely differently from first level, they just have bigger numbers. Wizards has recognize this for monster design -- if you compare MMM to VGtM or MToF, it's the spellcasting monsters that have been dramatically changed and simplified -- but they've already made two changes in One D&D that cut in the wrong direction:
Classes such as Bard and Ranger are now prepared spells casters, which is a vast complexity increase.
Number of spells prepared is increased. A level 10 ranger in 5e had 6 spells known, in One D&D it's 10 (9 base, hunters mark always prepared). A level 10 bard in 5e had 14; in One D&D it's 20 (15 base, 5 bonus).
Now, a lot of the problem has to do with what spells do, rather than the mechanics for using them, but still: reducing complexity in play (or making it so you can choose complexity at a cost in power -- say, subclasses whose only real benefit is more spells prepared) seems like it would go quite a way to making high level play something people would actually choose to do.
I was kind of thinking about that. How some of the things that were really a PITA in 1e worked really well as a balancing mechanic. Like magic users could never wear armor, ever, and only had a d4 for hit points (and they had to roll, so a level 1 MU could very well have 1hp), but also the differing scales for xp gain, so they were typically of a lower level than the rest of the party. But I think one of the bigger things was casting time. Spells just took longer to cast (you'd start on your turn, but would finish later in the round, or sometimes not until the next round), so enemies would often have a turn between when the MU started casting and when they finished, so the spell could be interrupted. And you couldn't cast level 9 spells without a 19 int (and this was before asi's existed, so there was no practical way to get one). There was just a host of things that really tamped down caster power.
I don't like the idea of going back to those mechanics, but it did make me realize that the streamlining that's taken place over the editions is one of the reasons casters are just so much more powerful.
To me, casting time is the one that could really have the most impact. I realize this isn't a good solution. but maybe something like the pathfinder 2 route with the three-action economy, and just have some spells take four actions, so you have to sit for a round before you finish. But that would lead to a lot more bookkeeping than I think anyone wants. And it's really not fun for your turn to be, I start casting a spell, and then spend the round hoping you don't get hit so you can actually do the thing on your next turn. So, like I said, I realize it's not a good solution.
High level play is rare because most adventures end at level 10-11. But yeah, let's cut options, creativity and freedom from the game. It's so much fun to just bonk things all the way. If you don't like the complexity of a tool given to you, like with bards' and rangers' prepared spellcasting, then just don't use it, don't change your prepared spells, play it like 5th edition. Stay simple. If someone is doing better than you finding optimal solutions to problems, that's their reward for brain activity.
Agreed, more options aren't always better. Already our 5e Bard in my high level game takes ages to decide what to do in combat while our ranger ignores their spellcasting entirely , and whenever we consider using magic out of combat there is a long discussion because the caster want to save slots for combat. More options just widen the gulf between optimizers and non-optimizers which is bad for the game b/c a new player in a party with experienced players will feel useless.
No, just no. 5e already has a very simple spellcasting system compared to previous editions, to the point I find it a bit lacklustre. Simplifying it even more would be a very bad option.
Agreed, more options aren't always better. Already our 5e Bard in my high level game takes ages to decide what to do in combat while our ranger ignores their spellcasting entirely , and whenever we consider using magic out of combat there is a long discussion because the caster want to save slots for combat. More options just widen the gulf between optimizers and non-optimizers which is bad for the game b/c a new player in a party with experienced players will feel useless.
Yes, more options are better, so long as they're real options that fit the game.
A player who's played from low to high level has spent many months at the helm of their character and shouldn't need "ages" to make a decision, especially a bard with a relative paucity of carefully chosen spells.
Ignoring a major, central component of your character build is not generally something to brag about.
Out-of-battle utility magic is a primary use for spells, not a tertiary one.
The "gulf" between optimizers and yaybos is not a gulf - it is a bridge. One any yaybo is always invited to cross at any point, with aid and guidance from people who've already done so. I lovce how an entirey party of advanced players is supposed to feel ashamed and terrible for being invested and experienced in the game because one single newbie sits down and rather than trying to benefit from the experience of his fellows around him, he "feels useless". Not because he is (or is not) useless or because he's learning the game, but because this post states that knowing the game is bad for the game.
How does that ever reconcile with anybody? That the better you get to be with the game, the worse you are at playing it?
I don’t find the current Spellcasting mechanics to be particularly complicated, but I do still feel that 1DD is moving in the wrong direction. Making all spellcasters Prepared casters is gonna make them all same-samey, and limiting available spells by schools is gonna make them all less versatile. No bueno.
I don’t know, while I’ll grant that an all non caster group is likely to be fine at tier 1 and have problems at tier 4 few parties are like that in my experience. At low levels the martials fight to protect the casters can use the few spells they have. At high level they fight to keep the riff-raff off the casters so they can use all those great spells they have.sounds like pretty much the same game to me. 😁🤪
I don't understand how prepared casting is more complicated than known spell casting. Prepared is EASIER than known. With prepared if you picked a spell that you don't like you can just change it after a long rest and try something else. If you picked multiple, you can change all of them. But if you make the wrong spell choice on level up with a known caster you have to wait till your next level up, and then you can only change 1 spell out so if you made multiple whoopsies because you were trying out spells you now have to wait a VERY long time to correct that issue. Prepared spell casting in 5e is simpler than known casting in 5e not harder.
I don't understand how prepared casting is more complicated than known spell casting.
Because to use a spell well, and to DM for a spell, you need to know what it does.
If you increase a PHB bard from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand three new spells.
If you increase a PHB cleric from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand at least sixteen (possibly as many as 18) new spells.
This is more of a problem for the DM than the player -- if the player doesn't want to learn how a given spell works he can just not bother to prep it, but the DM can't control what spells the player preps.
I was kind of thinking about that. How some of the things that were really a PITA in 1e worked really well as a balancing mechanic. Like magic users could never wear armor, ever, and only had a d4 for hit points (and they had to roll, so a level 1 MU could very well have 1hp), but also the differing scales for xp gain, so they were typically of a lower level than the rest of the party. But I think one of the bigger things was casting time. Spells just took longer to cast (you'd start on your turn, but would finish later in the round, or sometimes not until the next round), so enemies would often have a turn between when the MU started casting and when they finished, so the spell could be interrupted. And you couldn't cast level 9 spells without a 19 int (and this was before asi's existed, so there was no practical way to get one). There was just a host of things that really tamped down caster power.
I don't like the idea of going back to those mechanics, but it did make me realize that the streamlining that's taken place over the editions is one of the reasons casters are just so much more powerful.
To me, casting time is the one that could really have the most impact. I realize this isn't a good solution. but maybe something like the pathfinder 2 route with the three-action economy, and just have some spells take four actions, so you have to sit for a round before you finish. But that would lead to a lot more bookkeeping than I think anyone wants. And it's really not fun for your turn to be, I start casting a spell, and then spend the round hoping you don't get hit so you can actually do the thing on your next turn. So, like I said, I realize it's not a good solution.
I could see that as maybe using the concentration mechanic the way that Guidance currently does, or the much derided True Strike. Guidance gets away with it by being used out of combat. True Strike is mocked for being worse than just making another attack. But if most spells worked that way, I guess it would be the norm. There are dozens of ways it could be tried. It would be a pretty massive change though.
You also made me think of something I hadn't considered in a long time. Concerning the ways classes were balance in the earliest editions. That's really interesting. At the time, the impact of more modern changes to leveling up were something I never fully considered.
In early editions of DnD, classes required different amounts of experience to gain a level. This post brought up memories of a long campaign of my much younger days. We played it almost every weekend for years. Hundreds of games, leveling up very slowly by modern comparison. I have a distinct memory of reaching 9th level with my fighter (a very important milestone in those editions.) And when I did, our party's Rogue was already level 11. We didn't think anything of that difference at all. That's how the game worked. No one in the party was the same level.
I guess it was 3rd edition when they made all the classes use the same experience table. It felt sensible at the time. Everyone could level up together. And I imagine no one wants to change it back to the old ways now.
But spellcasters still get spells at the same levels. A wizard in 5e gets the next level of spells and their associated power every odd level, the same as they did in 1e. But different amounts of XP to level up was intended to balance classes when they needed it in old editions. In newer editions, I think we all assumed that they would balance the classes instead, so they could all use the same chart. I am certain they tried.
However they appear to have used the wizard spell advancement as the starting point. Since it is largely unchanged. Which means every other class has to be balanced against magic missile at level 1, fireball at level 5, and so on.
Now I'm curious.
I wonder what it would be like to try different XP charts again. Or what a campaign would feel like if 6th level spells were the highest that ever existed in the world. Or if the spell progression changed so that you didn't get 3rd level spells until 6th or 7th level.
Not for any official rules, obviously. Just to try a different kind of campaign. I wonder how it would feel.
The "gulf" between optimizers and yaybos is not a gulf - it is a bridge. One any yaybo is always invited to cross at any point, with aid and guidance from people who've already done so. I lovce how an entirey party of advanced players is supposed to feel ashamed and terrible for being invested and experienced in the game because one single newbie sits down and rather than trying to benefit from the experience of his fellows around him, he "feels useless". Not because he is (or is not) useless or because he's learning the game, but because this post states that knowing the game is bad for the game.
How does that ever reconcile with anybody? That the better you get to be with the game, the worse you are at playing it?
It's the "I don't want to aspire to anything, I'd rather drag everyone down to my level" mentality.
I don't understand how prepared casting is more complicated than known spell casting.
Because to use a spell well, and to DM for a spell, you need to know what it does.
If you increase a PHB bard from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand three new spells.
If you increase a PHB cleric from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand at least sixteen (possibly as many as 18) new spells.
This is more of a problem for the DM than the player -- if the player doesn't want to learn how a given spell works he can just not bother to prep it, but the DM can't control what spells the player preps.
Ok now I see, you have outright wrong and backwards. A known caster needs to know how EVERY SINGLE SPELL they can choose from works BEFORE they choose it, because if they don't they could choose the wrong spell and be stuck with it for a long time. A prepared caster can pick spells on their list that sound good to them, and if it doesn't end up working the way they think, that's ok they can just change it on a long rest. They don't the spells until the moment they try to cast them and can learn as they go.
This is WHY One DnD opted to make all spell casters prepared casters, because it IS less punishing and EASIER for new players not harder. I have had the pleasure of teaching people to play that wanted to play spell casters and the hardest spell caster to play for the new players has been the sorcerer, because they are the easiest ones to mess up their spell list because of the large list with the few spells known and the length of time it will take before they can correct it. Prepared is easier, in other additions this wasn't true, but in 5e prepared is SIMPLER than known.
A fair argument can be made that both ways are complicated, because spells are complicated. At some point everyone has to do work learning them. The different methods just shift the work to different times and people.
Known spells have the advantage that both the player and DM really only need to be knowledgeable of a small set of specific spells - those that are known. Over the course of play, they can both gradually build on that knowledge. The drawbacks are that the RAW method of swapping unwanted spells are more restrictive, and the work might still be needed early on anyway. A DM can ignore those rules and let a player swap more often, like between games, on a case by case basis. The class could offer sample spells for new players the way they do in the UA. But for a player to feel really good with their choices up front, they still have to read all of the spells either way.
Prepared spells have the advantage of flexibility. They are easy to swap on the fly. A player can just grab the ones with cool names and try them. If they don't like them, they can change them the next long rest. The downside is that the DM has to have a good grasp of all of them, or they will be forced to open the descriptions mid-game over and over. Both the DM and the player are learning all the spells either way, their just doing it as they go, often in the middle of the game itself.
Both have good and bad sides. There are definitely players that feel bad playing Sorcerers. I've had them in my games. They often spend a long time studying spells to make the best choice. There are also players who are intimidated by Clerics, because they feel they need to know every spell right from the start, and they avoid the class. I've had those too. And there are new DMs who feel like they need to know everything in the book to even begin running a game.
I might say that Known spells are a little easier for new DMs, and Prepared spells are easier for experienced ones. The new DM can start a game knowing only 3-5 spells if they are Known. The experienced DM can better guide new players if they are Prepared. For the players though, it can go either way. Depending on their personality, they might feel they need to do all the work upfront, or spread it out as they go. Known spells might apply some mental pressure to learn them all before choosing. Prepared spells might overwhelm others. Both benefit from the books suggesting spell choices at each level, so I'd call that part of the UA a win.
Here's a simple solution that no one will probably love - combine the two methods. Let players prepare spells each day, but from a smaller list of options. Like 10 choices at level 1, then add 10 more at level 2, etc. Effectively have 20 levels of spells.
I don't understand how prepared casting is more complicated than known spell casting.
Because to use a spell well, and to DM for a spell, you need to know what it does.
If you increase a PHB bard from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand three new spells.
If you increase a PHB cleric from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand at least sixteen (possibly as many as 18) new spells.
This is more of a problem for the DM than the player -- if the player doesn't want to learn how a given spell works he can just not bother to prep it, but the DM can't control what spells the player preps.
Ok now I see, you have outright wrong and backwards. A known caster needs to know how EVERY SINGLE SPELL they can choose from works BEFORE they choose it, because if they don't they could choose the wrong spell and be stuck with it for a long time. A prepared caster can pick spells on their list that sound good to them, and if it doesn't end up working the way they think, that's ok they can just change it on a long rest. They don't the spells until the moment they try to cast them and can learn as they go.
This is WHY One DnD opted to make all spell casters prepared casters, because it IS less punishing and EASIER for new players not harder. I have had the pleasure of teaching people to play that wanted to play spell casters and the hardest spell caster to play for the new players has been the sorcerer, because they are the easiest ones to mess up their spell list because of the large list with the few spells known and the length of time it will take before they can correct it. Prepared is easier, in other additions this wasn't true, but in 5e prepared is SIMPLER than known.
There’s no such thing as “the wrong spell” (other than true strike), because every spell is useful given the right circumstances (technically even true strike is useful under the right circumstances). There can be “wrong applications for a certain spell,” there can be a “wrong time for a certain spell,” but there can never be a “wrong spell.”
There should be a way a new player can easily play a spellcaster, but simplifying the whole spellcasting system is not the way to accomplish this. Numerous players like complex spellcasting, and it's not fair to take that option away from them. That being said, I would like at least one class that is a slightly simpler spellcaster so new players can easily play and enjoy it. A good way to have a class like this would be for 1DD to add a new class to the game.
There should be a way a new player can easily play a spellcaster, but simplifying the whole spellcasting system is not the way to accomplish this. Numerous players like complex spellcasting, and it's not fair to take that option away from them. That being said, I would like at least one class that is a slightly simpler spellcaster so new players can easily play and enjoy it. A good way to have a class like this would be for 1DD to add a new class to the game.
I agree, I think the best solution for everyone is probably a new simple Mage class, and a new complex Fighter class. We will already have 4 Experts when the Artificer comes out. Might as well get a fourth one for each of the other groups too.
I also think there is a big disparity between people's definitions of 'simple' and 'complex.' Whether they are taking about choices during character creation, or during a round of combat. Whether they mean explicit rules or implied rules. Whether they mean long tables or stacks of basic modifiers. Wordy descriptions, number of options, decisions to make, the actual outcomes, rules to learn, where the burden of the calculations and knowledge lies, what it actually adds to the game experience, and on and on and on.
Until everyone can agree on those definitions, we can't even begin to answer these questions. DnD is built on certain design principles. A large majority of attempts to 'fix' it through homebrew and proposed changes don't really mesh with those principles. So they are unlikely to ever be seen.
There should be a way a new player can easily play a spellcaster, but simplifying the whole spellcasting system is not the way to accomplish this. Numerous players like complex spellcasting, and it's not fair to take that option away from them. That being said, I would like at least one class that is a slightly simpler spellcaster so new players can easily play and enjoy it. A good way to have a class like this would be for 1DD to add a new class to the game.
Warlock. Most of the time you just eldritch blast, and otherwise you only have two spell slots for most of your career, and you don’t have to worry about levels. It’s very much a slightly simpler caster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you look at any set of statistics about players in D&D, you will discover
Now, if we look for what might cause these problems, there's really only one possible answer: it has to be spellcasters. A 20th level fighter or rogue doesn't really play hugely differently from first level, they just have bigger numbers. Wizards has recognize this for monster design -- if you compare MMM to VGtM or MToF, it's the spellcasting monsters that have been dramatically changed and simplified -- but they've already made two changes in One D&D that cut in the wrong direction:
Now, a lot of the problem has to do with what spells do, rather than the mechanics for using them, but still: reducing complexity in play (or making it so you can choose complexity at a cost in power -- say, subclasses whose only real benefit is more spells prepared) seems like it would go quite a way to making high level play something people would actually choose to do.
I was kind of thinking about that. How some of the things that were really a PITA in 1e worked really well as a balancing mechanic. Like magic users could never wear armor, ever, and only had a d4 for hit points (and they had to roll, so a level 1 MU could very well have 1hp), but also the differing scales for xp gain, so they were typically of a lower level than the rest of the party. But I think one of the bigger things was casting time. Spells just took longer to cast (you'd start on your turn, but would finish later in the round, or sometimes not until the next round), so enemies would often have a turn between when the MU started casting and when they finished, so the spell could be interrupted. And you couldn't cast level 9 spells without a 19 int (and this was before asi's existed, so there was no practical way to get one). There was just a host of things that really tamped down caster power.
I don't like the idea of going back to those mechanics, but it did make me realize that the streamlining that's taken place over the editions is one of the reasons casters are just so much more powerful.
To me, casting time is the one that could really have the most impact. I realize this isn't a good solution. but maybe something like the pathfinder 2 route with the three-action economy, and just have some spells take four actions, so you have to sit for a round before you finish. But that would lead to a lot more bookkeeping than I think anyone wants. And it's really not fun for your turn to be, I start casting a spell, and then spend the round hoping you don't get hit so you can actually do the thing on your next turn. So, like I said, I realize it's not a good solution.
High level play is rare because most adventures end at level 10-11. But yeah, let's cut options, creativity and freedom from the game. It's so much fun to just bonk things all the way. If you don't like the complexity of a tool given to you, like with bards' and rangers' prepared spellcasting, then just don't use it, don't change your prepared spells, play it like 5th edition. Stay simple. If someone is doing better than you finding optimal solutions to problems, that's their reward for brain activity.
Agreed, more options aren't always better. Already our 5e Bard in my high level game takes ages to decide what to do in combat while our ranger ignores their spellcasting entirely , and whenever we consider using magic out of combat there is a long discussion because the caster want to save slots for combat. More options just widen the gulf between optimizers and non-optimizers which is bad for the game b/c a new player in a party with experienced players will feel useless.
No, just no. 5e already has a very simple spellcasting system compared to previous editions, to the point I find it a bit lacklustre. Simplifying it even more would be a very bad option.
Yes, more options are better, so long as they're real options that fit the game.
A player who's played from low to high level has spent many months at the helm of their character and shouldn't need "ages" to make a decision, especially a bard with a relative paucity of carefully chosen spells.
Ignoring a major, central component of your character build is not generally something to brag about.
Out-of-battle utility magic is a primary use for spells, not a tertiary one.
The "gulf" between optimizers and yaybos is not a gulf - it is a bridge. One any yaybo is always invited to cross at any point, with aid and guidance from people who've already done so. I lovce how an entirey party of advanced players is supposed to feel ashamed and terrible for being invested and experienced in the game because one single newbie sits down and rather than trying to benefit from the experience of his fellows around him, he "feels useless". Not because he is (or is not) useless or because he's learning the game, but because this post states that knowing the game is bad for the game.
How does that ever reconcile with anybody? That the better you get to be with the game, the worse you are at playing it?
Please do not contact or message me.
I don’t find the current Spellcasting mechanics to be particularly complicated, but I do still feel that 1DD is moving in the wrong direction. Making all spellcasters Prepared casters is gonna make them all same-samey, and limiting available spells by schools is gonna make them all less versatile. No bueno.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don’t know, while I’ll grant that an all non caster group is likely to be fine at tier 1 and have problems at tier 4 few parties are like that in my experience. At low levels the martials fight to protect the casters can use the few spells they have. At high level they fight to keep the riff-raff off the casters so they can use all those great spells they have.sounds like pretty much the same game to me. 😁🤪
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't understand how prepared casting is more complicated than known spell casting. Prepared is EASIER than known. With prepared if you picked a spell that you don't like you can just change it after a long rest and try something else. If you picked multiple, you can change all of them. But if you make the wrong spell choice on level up with a known caster you have to wait till your next level up, and then you can only change 1 spell out so if you made multiple whoopsies because you were trying out spells you now have to wait a VERY long time to correct that issue. Prepared spell casting in 5e is simpler than known casting in 5e not harder.
Because to use a spell well, and to DM for a spell, you need to know what it does.
If you increase a PHB bard from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand three new spells.
If you increase a PHB cleric from level 8 to level 10, both player and DM need to learn to properly understand at least sixteen (possibly as many as 18) new spells.
This is more of a problem for the DM than the player -- if the player doesn't want to learn how a given spell works he can just not bother to prep it, but the DM can't control what spells the player preps.
I could see that as maybe using the concentration mechanic the way that Guidance currently does, or the much derided True Strike. Guidance gets away with it by being used out of combat. True Strike is mocked for being worse than just making another attack. But if most spells worked that way, I guess it would be the norm. There are dozens of ways it could be tried. It would be a pretty massive change though.
You also made me think of something I hadn't considered in a long time. Concerning the ways classes were balance in the earliest editions. That's really interesting. At the time, the impact of more modern changes to leveling up were something I never fully considered.
In early editions of DnD, classes required different amounts of experience to gain a level. This post brought up memories of a long campaign of my much younger days. We played it almost every weekend for years. Hundreds of games, leveling up very slowly by modern comparison. I have a distinct memory of reaching 9th level with my fighter (a very important milestone in those editions.) And when I did, our party's Rogue was already level 11. We didn't think anything of that difference at all. That's how the game worked. No one in the party was the same level.
I guess it was 3rd edition when they made all the classes use the same experience table. It felt sensible at the time. Everyone could level up together. And I imagine no one wants to change it back to the old ways now.
But spellcasters still get spells at the same levels. A wizard in 5e gets the next level of spells and their associated power every odd level, the same as they did in 1e. But different amounts of XP to level up was intended to balance classes when they needed it in old editions. In newer editions, I think we all assumed that they would balance the classes instead, so they could all use the same chart. I am certain they tried.
However they appear to have used the wizard spell advancement as the starting point. Since it is largely unchanged. Which means every other class has to be balanced against magic missile at level 1, fireball at level 5, and so on.
Now I'm curious.
I wonder what it would be like to try different XP charts again. Or what a campaign would feel like if 6th level spells were the highest that ever existed in the world. Or if the spell progression changed so that you didn't get 3rd level spells until 6th or 7th level.
Not for any official rules, obviously. Just to try a different kind of campaign. I wonder how it would feel.
It's the "I don't want to aspire to anything, I'd rather drag everyone down to my level" mentality.
Some thought and concerns for spell casting and casters?
Anyone else think that once you cast a concentration spell you should not be able to cast another spell till concentration spell ends.
I feel a concentration spell is like reading a book.
Turn one. Read this book but do not stop. (Concentration spell)
Turn 2. If you stop to do a math problem the stream of reading stops. (Math problem gets done but reading 'concentration spell' has stopped)
Only exceptions would be if there is an additional condition in the spell Like Smite spells (Striking with melee weapon)
////////////////////
Spell Components:
MATERIAL: Components Free action to equip/stow a weapon so free action to grab/put away spell components (unless they get used during casting)
VERBAL: Has to be heard (Breaks stealth / draws attention) No having a quiet cough as verbal component. Unless you have meta-magic subtle spell.
SOMATIC: Does it need to be done only at start of spell. (Pointing for a 'ray' spell) or doing hand gestures throughout casting time.
////////////////////
How do races with racial spells cast them? Do they need the material components? And if so, how do they learn this?
Ok now I see, you have outright wrong and backwards. A known caster needs to know how EVERY SINGLE SPELL they can choose from works BEFORE they choose it, because if they don't they could choose the wrong spell and be stuck with it for a long time. A prepared caster can pick spells on their list that sound good to them, and if it doesn't end up working the way they think, that's ok they can just change it on a long rest. They don't the spells until the moment they try to cast them and can learn as they go.
This is WHY One DnD opted to make all spell casters prepared casters, because it IS less punishing and EASIER for new players not harder. I have had the pleasure of teaching people to play that wanted to play spell casters and the hardest spell caster to play for the new players has been the sorcerer, because they are the easiest ones to mess up their spell list because of the large list with the few spells known and the length of time it will take before they can correct it. Prepared is easier, in other additions this wasn't true, but in 5e prepared is SIMPLER than known.
A fair argument can be made that both ways are complicated, because spells are complicated. At some point everyone has to do work learning them. The different methods just shift the work to different times and people.
Known spells have the advantage that both the player and DM really only need to be knowledgeable of a small set of specific spells - those that are known. Over the course of play, they can both gradually build on that knowledge. The drawbacks are that the RAW method of swapping unwanted spells are more restrictive, and the work might still be needed early on anyway. A DM can ignore those rules and let a player swap more often, like between games, on a case by case basis. The class could offer sample spells for new players the way they do in the UA. But for a player to feel really good with their choices up front, they still have to read all of the spells either way.
Prepared spells have the advantage of flexibility. They are easy to swap on the fly. A player can just grab the ones with cool names and try them. If they don't like them, they can change them the next long rest. The downside is that the DM has to have a good grasp of all of them, or they will be forced to open the descriptions mid-game over and over. Both the DM and the player are learning all the spells either way, their just doing it as they go, often in the middle of the game itself.
Both have good and bad sides. There are definitely players that feel bad playing Sorcerers. I've had them in my games. They often spend a long time studying spells to make the best choice. There are also players who are intimidated by Clerics, because they feel they need to know every spell right from the start, and they avoid the class. I've had those too. And there are new DMs who feel like they need to know everything in the book to even begin running a game.
I might say that Known spells are a little easier for new DMs, and Prepared spells are easier for experienced ones. The new DM can start a game knowing only 3-5 spells if they are Known. The experienced DM can better guide new players if they are Prepared. For the players though, it can go either way. Depending on their personality, they might feel they need to do all the work upfront, or spread it out as they go. Known spells might apply some mental pressure to learn them all before choosing. Prepared spells might overwhelm others. Both benefit from the books suggesting spell choices at each level, so I'd call that part of the UA a win.
Here's a simple solution that no one will probably love - combine the two methods. Let players prepare spells each day, but from a smaller list of options. Like 10 choices at level 1, then add 10 more at level 2, etc. Effectively have 20 levels of spells.
There’s no such thing as “the wrong spell” (other than true strike), because every spell is useful given the right circumstances (technically even true strike is useful under the right circumstances). There can be “wrong applications for a certain spell,” there can be a “wrong time for a certain spell,” but there can never be a “wrong spell.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There should be a way a new player can easily play a spellcaster, but simplifying the whole spellcasting system is not the way to accomplish this. Numerous players like complex spellcasting, and it's not fair to take that option away from them. That being said, I would like at least one class that is a slightly simpler spellcaster so new players can easily play and enjoy it. A good way to have a class like this would be for 1DD to add a new class to the game.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I agree, I think the best solution for everyone is probably a new simple Mage class, and a new complex Fighter class. We will already have 4 Experts when the Artificer comes out. Might as well get a fourth one for each of the other groups too.
I also think there is a big disparity between people's definitions of 'simple' and 'complex.' Whether they are taking about choices during character creation, or during a round of combat. Whether they mean explicit rules or implied rules. Whether they mean long tables or stacks of basic modifiers. Wordy descriptions, number of options, decisions to make, the actual outcomes, rules to learn, where the burden of the calculations and knowledge lies, what it actually adds to the game experience, and on and on and on.
Until everyone can agree on those definitions, we can't even begin to answer these questions. DnD is built on certain design principles. A large majority of attempts to 'fix' it through homebrew and proposed changes don't really mesh with those principles. So they are unlikely to ever be seen.
Warlock. Most of the time you just eldritch blast, and otherwise you only have two spell slots for most of your career, and you don’t have to worry about levels. It’s very much a slightly simpler caster.