I've mostly come to terms with the new approach to spell preparation being based on spell slots. I'm still not a huge fan and would prefer other solutions, but I understand the motivation and design goals behind it. Simplifying spell prep makes it easier and more approachable to new players while simultaneously not bogging down the game waiting for casters to look through every possible spell they could choose from every spell level every night (especially if most classes become prepared casters in One D&D).
However I do feel that the new system FEELS bad for most players, even if in some cases you are actually getting more spells than before. Player perception and how it feels to play cna be just as important as how it actually is mechanically speaking. Inevitably someone will have some amazing idea that requires them to cast 2 6th level spells and not be able to (assuming you aren't playing a 19th Level Campaign or something). Or they'd really like a few spells for theming/flavour for their character but due to how restrictive and prescriptive the new spell slot system is, those spells come at just too high a price to be worth adding to your list.
Not to mention the complete separation of your Spellcasting Ability Score from this process; a class's PRIMARY ABILITY shouldn't be complete irrelevant in affecting the number of spells they have access to. Investing in primary ability scores should give a caster more flexibility and a tangible feeling of growth in their number of spells, not simply just a boost to their to hit chance or saving throw DC. I could build a wizard based around spells that have no saving throws or attack rolls (False Life and Feather Fall and Sleep and Knock and so on) and I'd see no difference if this wizard had 2 INT or 20. Intelligence is the wizard's primary ability and for it to have no impact at all is ludicrous.
But like I said, I appreciate what WotC are trying to do and what they want to accomplish with the system. I think my simple change would just help improve the feeling of freedom and flexibility while not overcomplicating it for new players;
Number of spells prepared = Based on spell slots (exactly like One D&D currently) + Spellcasting modifier (freely chosen from any spell levels you have access to, minimum of 1)
This helps make ability scores still feel like they matter as well giving just enough flexibility to add a couple spells that you really want without being limited to an absolute max number of spells from any given level. My only addendum would be that this system is overly generous at low levels (more than doubling total spells if you have a +3 modifier). I'm no game designer and so I don't know the best way to balance it. Maybe the solution would be to make it only add half your modifier (rounded up) or possibly base it more around proficiency bonus or make it be half your class level instead (rounded up). I just think there needs to be something to open the choices up slightly beyond an absolute maximum of spells from any level and no freedom mix and match and customise in any way.
I like it, I think it's a good way of applying limitations. Spellcasters were too versatile, had too many options. It's good to have options, but that kind of power had to be reined in, too. Now spellcasters will have to choose more wisely, and the process of choosing spells will go faster, which is also good. We haven't seen mage class group UA, so we can't tell how sorcerers and wizards will be different yet.
I have a question, if option 2 is applied, how would it be done? You have more choices than the number of spell slots, would additional choices NOT be limited? Could you use them for spells of any level? (Considering then a minimum, each spell slot will have a prepared spell according to its level, being able to exceed it if you have more prepared, without clearly counting those that a subclass automatically prepares for you... and if the bonus is negative?)
I prefer 5e, your stats influence, but I know they won't keep it, so by default I think I prefer option 3. Simple and without restrictions (Leave 1 as a suggestion and guide for newcomers)
I have a question, if option 2 is applied, how would it be done? You have more choices than the number of spell slots, would additional choices NOT be limited? Could you use them for spells of any level? (Considering then a minimum, each spell slot will have a prepared spell according to its level, being able to exceed it if you have more prepared, without clearly counting those that a subclass automatically prepares for you... and if the bonus is negative?)
I prefer 5e, your stats influence, but I know they won't keep it, so by default I think I prefer option 3. Simple and without restrictions (Leave 1 as a suggestion and guide for newcomers)
The additional options according to whatever modifier (prof. bonus, ability score or whatever) would be free choice from any level you can cast. So for example you have X number of level 1 spells (matching spell slots), X number of level 2 (matching spell slots) X number of level 3 (matching spell slots), plus X number of free choices according to the modifier (of any mix of level 1, 2 and 3 spells). The minimum being 1 matches how most features and abilities are designed in D&D (and stops like a low INT wizard being too harshly punished by actually losing prepared spells while still missing out on having more possible spells prepared). Maybe the minimum could be 0 though.
I just made a copy of my 15th level druid and reselected spells based on the spell slots/level and although I do lose out on having a few options spell levels 6th-8th, I think that I could live with it, if I needed to change out my selections. I have less spell preps overall (went from 20 to 18) but most of my current selections on my 5E version went unchanged.
1) My option isn't in the poll, which is essentially "OneD&D system but you can prepare more lower-level spells in place of high-level ones if you want."
2) In addition to (slightly) reducing caster versatility, this method also makes subclass spell lists matter more. Throughout most of your career, you'll rely on the bonus preparations from your subclass to get more options from those higher level slots than you're able to prepare, which gives the design team an added balance lever.
I prefer the old system including having some casters being known spell vs prepared. Not sure yet if known is out entirely at least until the mage group, but it seems to be going that way. Personally I don't mind the bard switching to prepared but I'd have gone the wizard route and given them a spell book. As lore focused people it seems fitting, but just knowing all spells seems a bit much. But, I'd also like warlocks to be int based and have a similar system.
I get they can change the lore and setting with every edition if they want but non priests just knowing every spell just does not sit right with me on a setting/lore level.
I like it, I think it's a good way of applying limitations. Spellcasters were too versatile, had too many options. It's good to have options, but that kind of power had to be reined in, too. Now spellcasters will have to choose more wisely, and the process of choosing spells will go faster, which is also good. We haven't seen mage class group UA, so we can't tell how sorcerers and wizards will be different yet.
Are they really less versatile now? i know many of us including me have called it a slight nerf and for druids/clerics it is, but for bards they got a buff imo, wizards if they instantly know every spell it will be a huge buff, sorcerers if they go from thier 15 known to this a huge buff. And all because they are now far far more versatile. And out of the full caster classes that needed a spell casting nerf druid and cleric would not have been high on my list.
Of course it is less flexible. More total spells does not inherently make you more versatile. This a ridiculous analogy but go along with it to see the point being made; imagine a restaurant that only offers curry and then it decides it has two options to expand the menu, either double the amount of curry on the menu or offer steak dishes too. Neither one is necessarily bad, maybe the restaurant wants to specialise exclusively in curry dishes. But it's hard to argue that the menu offering curry or steak is more versatile/flexible. Customers who might not be in the mood for curry might still come to the restaurant because a nice steak sounds good. It provides a variety of options for people to choose from.
A spellcaster who absolutely definitively has to know for certain what 6th level spell they'll want to cast on any given day because they can't prepare 2 just in case they don't know what the day will bring, giving them an option between the two, has less versatility. Not to mention you being forced to prepare a set number of spells of each level, no more and no less, is by definition the opposite of flexible.
1) My option isn't in the poll, which is essentially "OneD&D system but you can prepare more lower-level spells in place of high-level ones if you want."
2) In addition to (slightly) reducing caster versatility, this method also makes subclass spell lists matter more. Throughout most of your career, you'll rely on the bonus preparations from your subclass to get more options from those higher level slots than you're able to prepare, which gives the design team an added balance lever.
That is precisely what option 3 is; you get the same total number of spells as the One D&D system, but you can select them from any level. So if you want them all to be level 1 and 2 spells and don't want any 7th level spells, you can do that. Free choice but just with fixed limit based on number of spell slots.
1) My option isn't in the poll, which is essentially "OneD&D system but you can prepare more lower-level spells in place of high-level ones if you want."
2) In addition to (slightly) reducing caster versatility, this method also makes subclass spell lists matter more. Throughout most of your career, you'll rely on the bonus preparations from your subclass to get more options from those higher level slots than you're able to prepare, which gives the design team an added balance lever.
That is precisely what option 3 is; you get the same total number of spells as the One D&D system, but you can select them from any level. So if you want them all to be level 1 and 2 spells and don't want any 7th level spells, you can do that. Free choice but just with fixed limit based on number of spell slots.
It is not the same, it is something intermediate between 1 and 3, since he wanted to prioritize that the lower levels have more options/selections, having a possible greater variety when migrating the higher level preparations that you could not select to the level 1 spells and 2 for those of utility.
Having fewer restrictions, I preferred it much more than 1 without a doubt, that variant would not have bothered me, but I still prefer 3
Of course it is less flexible. More total spells does not inherently make you more versatile. This a ridiculous analogy but go along with it to see the point being made; imagine a restaurant that only offers curry and then it decides it has two options to expand the menu, either double the amount of curry on the menu or offer steak dishes too. Neither one is necessarily bad, maybe the restaurant wants to specialise exclusively in curry dishes. But it's hard to argue that the menu offering curry or steak is more versatile/flexible. Customers who might not be in the mood for curry might still come to the restaurant because a nice steak sounds good. It provides a variety of options for people to choose from.
A spellcaster who absolutely definitively has to know for certain what 6th level spell they'll want to cast on any given day because they can't prepare 2 just in case they don't know what the day will bring, giving them an option between the two, has less versatility. Not to mention you being forced to prepare a set number of spells of each level, no more and no less, is by definition the opposite of flexible.
At 7th level a bard has 10 known spells from a largely similar list as exists now. When they pick it they can not swap it out until their next level up, so they have to plan ahead for an entire level not just the next day. Now they have 11 spells to prepare from their entire list and they can swap it out every day, but they need to organize it in a certain number of spells per level system which they likely would have been close to anyways due to only swapping out one spell per level up. Bards are vastly more flexible now than they were before, sorcerers will be as well if they get the same system, warlocks the same. Wizards mostly will be unless they are in a campaign where they had access, cash and downtime to scribe tons of spells.
This is a small nerf to clerics and druids and a massive buff to the arcane classes which really did not need it. Rangers/paladins massive buff, far more than their spells known and they gained cantrips.
I really hope they backtrack a bit for the mage class group, but I don't see how you make a system where bards know every spell but wizards only know the 10 in their spell book.
I get what you're saying, a move to daily prep for classes that previously weren't is a boost to flexibility for sure. But I'd much rather build a character with a list of spells that I've planned out for that character. That 7th level bard cannot, under any circumstances, have 2 4th level spells to choose from. Daily prep can be seen as flexible in a certain sense, but there's no freedom or flexibility in the moment when you actually need to use a spell. If I prepped Polymorph and find myself in an encounter where I absolutely need Dimension Door (when I 100% would've taken both when I levelled up as I was planning ahead for possible situations I might be faced with and I had a 1st level spell I don't ever use), it's no use to me in the moment where my life might be at risk that "at least I can change spells each day".
Sure, but its much easier to plan ahead for tomorrow than for your next 6 weeks or whatever it takes to level up. Whatever 2 spells you picked at 4th level there will be a lot of well darn I really needed this 4th level spell instead. But now, you know you are entering the tomb of the something evil sounding and you can custom pick that 4th level spell to something that fits better than both polymorph and dimension door. Especially since now you are more free to pick divining spells the day before, so you will have a better idea of what to prepare.
Edit to add I forgot Bards are losing teleportation effects since they don't have conjuration. That is a hit, not due to the prep style but teleports are big get out of jail free cards. Honestly I think they were far too prevalent in 5e. So I am not sure this is a bad thing. I kind of expect the sorcerer to lose conjuration as well, so maybe only the wizard and warlock will have it.
If you pick out your list of known spells as a long term thing, then you'd pick 2 4th levels that you expect to get use out of consistently (plus possibly a lower level spell you'd want to upcast to 4th on those rare days where you find you don't need either). My core issue is the rigid inflexibility of it literally being impossible to have 2 at the same time to choose from. The versatility I want in a system is to be able to arrange a list of spells that suits me and my character. If I want to build a weird bard who only has 1st level spells and nothing higher, a flexible system would let me.
I see it this way; imagine if they changed martial characters so they had to have a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other. Those slots are set and you have to strictly stick to them. But it's still flexible.....you can pick which weapon you have in that hand. That's what it feels like to be told you HAVE to have 4 1st level spells, no more and no less (just as an example, I'm not specifically picking on 1st level spells, my issue is with having a set number at all levels).
If you pick out your list of known spells as a long term thing, then you'd pick 2 4th levels that you expect to get use out of consistently (plus possibly a lower level spell you'd want to upcast to 4th on those rare days where you find you don't need either). My core issue is the rigid inflexibility of it literally being impossible to have 2 at the same time to choose from. The versatility I want in a system is to be able to arrange a list of spells that suits me and my character. If I want to build a weird bard who only has 1st level spells and nothing higher, a flexible system would let me.
I see it this way; imagine if they changed martial characters so they had to have a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other. Those slots are set and you have to strictly stick to them. But it's still flexible.....you can pick which weapon you have in that hand. That's what it feels like to be told you HAVE to have 4 1st level spells, no more and no less (just as an example, I'm not specifically picking on 1st level spells, my issue is with having a set number at all levels).
Although I'm not a huge fan of the change, this is where choices have consequences. Except that the consequence only lasts until a long rest. And I think your example is a little off. Hitting fighters with you need to use a one-handed weapon and shield but the flexibility comes in with choosing the weapon doesn't match up. The vast choices of the spell lists give way more versatility than choosing a weapon to wield with your shield (we will have to see what they do with weapons in the Warrior UA). So you might not be able to choose the two or three 6th level spells you want, but the spell lists cover so many things (buff, debuff, damage, battlefield control, etc.) that any spellcaster will still have quite an assortment of options that your Fighter example would not have.
Hey don't get me wrong I prefer the 5e method, but compared to fixed known spells it is a buff, compared to a non robust spell book it is a buff. My peak preference would be all arcane casters get a spell book except the sorcerer. Bard/lock/wizard prepare spells like the wizard did in 5e though reduce the total number a bit, the sorcerer has known spells but its 15 and sub class spells. But I can see that what was given here is a buff overall, is it perhaps less fun for the player, sure but it is a buff.
Hey don't get me wrong I prefer the 5e method, but compared to fixed known spells it is a buff, compared to a non robust spell book it is a buff. My peak preference would be all arcane casters get a spell book except the sorcerer. Bard/lock/wizard prepare spells like the wizard did in 5e though reduce the total number a bit, the sorcerer has known spells but its 15 and sub class spells. But I can see that what was given here is a buff overall, is it perhaps less fun for the player, sure but it is a buff.
I’m not sure what they will do with wizards but what would you think if they become prepared casters like everyone else. And they prepare spells like everyone else, but they also get to pick a certain number of ritual spells they they can put in their spellbook which they can cast as rituals without being prepared, like now. Although they might need to get rid of scribing spells from scrolls so they can’t just put every ritual in their spellbook.
1) My option isn't in the poll, which is essentially "OneD&D system but you can prepare more lower-level spells in place of high-level ones if you want."
2) In addition to (slightly) reducing caster versatility, this method also makes subclass spell lists matter more. Throughout most of your career, you'll rely on the bonus preparations from your subclass to get more options from those higher level slots than you're able to prepare, which gives the design team an added balance lever.
That is precisely what option 3 is; you get the same total number of spells as the One D&D system, but you can select them from any level. So if you want them all to be level 1 and 2 spells and don't want any 7th level spells, you can do that. Free choice but just with fixed limit based on number of spell slots.
It is not the same, it is something intermediate between 1 and 3, since he wanted to prioritize that the lower levels have more options/selections, having a possible greater variety when migrating the higher level preparations that you could not select to the level 1 spells and 2 for those of utility.
Having fewer restrictions, I preferred it much more than 1 without a doubt, that variant would not have bothered me, but I still prefer 3
Sakura is correct, freely chosen from any level you can cast" gets us right back to the way things work in 5e where you can topload your preparations. I don't want the number of higher level spell preparations to increase, I'm looking for those to be limited but you can trade them out for additional lower-level preparations if you want.
I'm not a fan of the changes so far to spellcasting mechanics being done in 1D&D, on multiple levels. I get the idea behind not wanting classes like Rangers & Bards to feel stuck with spell choices they later regret, but I liked the classes having different approaches to how they learn & use their magic. I don't like the new limitation on how many spells of each level you can prepare, I think it only detracts without adding anything except forced limitations. And I'm really not a fan of the new rule for ritual casting. I liked the idea that the "technique" of ritual spellcasting had to be learned, it wasn't inherent in the spell itself. Heck, I don't even like the new Ritual Caster feat. Being able to skip the extra 10 minutes feels like a poor tradeoff for only getting those two 1st-level ritual spells. So far, the changes are leaving me worried about what's going to distinguish the Wizard in the new rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've mostly come to terms with the new approach to spell preparation being based on spell slots. I'm still not a huge fan and would prefer other solutions, but I understand the motivation and design goals behind it. Simplifying spell prep makes it easier and more approachable to new players while simultaneously not bogging down the game waiting for casters to look through every possible spell they could choose from every spell level every night (especially if most classes become prepared casters in One D&D).
However I do feel that the new system FEELS bad for most players, even if in some cases you are actually getting more spells than before. Player perception and how it feels to play cna be just as important as how it actually is mechanically speaking. Inevitably someone will have some amazing idea that requires them to cast 2 6th level spells and not be able to (assuming you aren't playing a 19th Level Campaign or something). Or they'd really like a few spells for theming/flavour for their character but due to how restrictive and prescriptive the new spell slot system is, those spells come at just too high a price to be worth adding to your list.
Not to mention the complete separation of your Spellcasting Ability Score from this process; a class's PRIMARY ABILITY shouldn't be complete irrelevant in affecting the number of spells they have access to. Investing in primary ability scores should give a caster more flexibility and a tangible feeling of growth in their number of spells, not simply just a boost to their to hit chance or saving throw DC. I could build a wizard based around spells that have no saving throws or attack rolls (False Life and Feather Fall and Sleep and Knock and so on) and I'd see no difference if this wizard had 2 INT or 20. Intelligence is the wizard's primary ability and for it to have no impact at all is ludicrous.
But like I said, I appreciate what WotC are trying to do and what they want to accomplish with the system. I think my simple change would just help improve the feeling of freedom and flexibility while not overcomplicating it for new players;
Number of spells prepared = Based on spell slots (exactly like One D&D currently) + Spellcasting modifier (freely chosen from any spell levels you have access to, minimum of 1)
This helps make ability scores still feel like they matter as well giving just enough flexibility to add a couple spells that you really want without being limited to an absolute max number of spells from any given level. My only addendum would be that this system is overly generous at low levels (more than doubling total spells if you have a +3 modifier). I'm no game designer and so I don't know the best way to balance it. Maybe the solution would be to make it only add half your modifier (rounded up) or possibly base it more around proficiency bonus or make it be half your class level instead (rounded up). I just think there needs to be something to open the choices up slightly beyond an absolute maximum of spells from any level and no freedom mix and match and customise in any way.
I like it, I think it's a good way of applying limitations. Spellcasters were too versatile, had too many options. It's good to have options, but that kind of power had to be reined in, too. Now spellcasters will have to choose more wisely, and the process of choosing spells will go faster, which is also good. We haven't seen mage class group UA, so we can't tell how sorcerers and wizards will be different yet.
I have a question, if option 2 is applied, how would it be done? You have more choices than the number of spell slots, would additional choices NOT be limited? Could you use them for spells of any level? (Considering then a minimum, each spell slot will have a prepared spell according to its level, being able to exceed it if you have more prepared, without clearly counting those that a subclass automatically prepares for you... and if the bonus is negative?)
I prefer 5e, your stats influence, but I know they won't keep it, so by default I think I prefer option 3. Simple and without restrictions (Leave 1 as a suggestion and guide for newcomers)
The additional options according to whatever modifier (prof. bonus, ability score or whatever) would be free choice from any level you can cast. So for example you have X number of level 1 spells (matching spell slots), X number of level 2 (matching spell slots) X number of level 3 (matching spell slots), plus X number of free choices according to the modifier (of any mix of level 1, 2 and 3 spells). The minimum being 1 matches how most features and abilities are designed in D&D (and stops like a low INT wizard being too harshly punished by actually losing prepared spells while still missing out on having more possible spells prepared). Maybe the minimum could be 0 though.
I just made a copy of my 15th level druid and reselected spells based on the spell slots/level and although I do lose out on having a few options spell levels 6th-8th, I think that I could live with it, if I needed to change out my selections. I have less spell preps overall (went from 20 to 18) but most of my current selections on my 5E version went unchanged.
I put option 3. But I could work with option 1.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
1) My option isn't in the poll, which is essentially "OneD&D system but you can prepare more lower-level spells in place of high-level ones if you want."
2) In addition to (slightly) reducing caster versatility, this method also makes subclass spell lists matter more. Throughout most of your career, you'll rely on the bonus preparations from your subclass to get more options from those higher level slots than you're able to prepare, which gives the design team an added balance lever.
I prefer the old system including having some casters being known spell vs prepared. Not sure yet if known is out entirely at least until the mage group, but it seems to be going that way. Personally I don't mind the bard switching to prepared but I'd have gone the wizard route and given them a spell book. As lore focused people it seems fitting, but just knowing all spells seems a bit much. But, I'd also like warlocks to be int based and have a similar system.
I get they can change the lore and setting with every edition if they want but non priests just knowing every spell just does not sit right with me on a setting/lore level.
Are they really less versatile now? i know many of us including me have called it a slight nerf and for druids/clerics it is, but for bards they got a buff imo, wizards if they instantly know every spell it will be a huge buff, sorcerers if they go from thier 15 known to this a huge buff. And all because they are now far far more versatile. And out of the full caster classes that needed a spell casting nerf druid and cleric would not have been high on my list.
Of course it is less flexible. More total spells does not inherently make you more versatile. This a ridiculous analogy but go along with it to see the point being made; imagine a restaurant that only offers curry and then it decides it has two options to expand the menu, either double the amount of curry on the menu or offer steak dishes too. Neither one is necessarily bad, maybe the restaurant wants to specialise exclusively in curry dishes. But it's hard to argue that the menu offering curry or steak is more versatile/flexible. Customers who might not be in the mood for curry might still come to the restaurant because a nice steak sounds good. It provides a variety of options for people to choose from.
A spellcaster who absolutely definitively has to know for certain what 6th level spell they'll want to cast on any given day because they can't prepare 2 just in case they don't know what the day will bring, giving them an option between the two, has less versatility. Not to mention you being forced to prepare a set number of spells of each level, no more and no less, is by definition the opposite of flexible.
That is precisely what option 3 is; you get the same total number of spells as the One D&D system, but you can select them from any level. So if you want them all to be level 1 and 2 spells and don't want any 7th level spells, you can do that. Free choice but just with fixed limit based on number of spell slots.
It is not the same, it is something intermediate between 1 and 3, since he wanted to prioritize that the lower levels have more options/selections, having a possible greater variety when migrating the higher level preparations that you could not select to the level 1 spells and 2 for those of utility.
Having fewer restrictions, I preferred it much more than 1 without a doubt, that variant would not have bothered me, but I still prefer 3
At 7th level a bard has 10 known spells from a largely similar list as exists now. When they pick it they can not swap it out until their next level up, so they have to plan ahead for an entire level not just the next day. Now they have 11 spells to prepare from their entire list and they can swap it out every day, but they need to organize it in a certain number of spells per level system which they likely would have been close to anyways due to only swapping out one spell per level up. Bards are vastly more flexible now than they were before, sorcerers will be as well if they get the same system, warlocks the same. Wizards mostly will be unless they are in a campaign where they had access, cash and downtime to scribe tons of spells.
This is a small nerf to clerics and druids and a massive buff to the arcane classes which really did not need it. Rangers/paladins massive buff, far more than their spells known and they gained cantrips.
I really hope they backtrack a bit for the mage class group, but I don't see how you make a system where bards know every spell but wizards only know the 10 in their spell book.
I get what you're saying, a move to daily prep for classes that previously weren't is a boost to flexibility for sure. But I'd much rather build a character with a list of spells that I've planned out for that character. That 7th level bard cannot, under any circumstances, have 2 4th level spells to choose from. Daily prep can be seen as flexible in a certain sense, but there's no freedom or flexibility in the moment when you actually need to use a spell. If I prepped Polymorph and find myself in an encounter where I absolutely need Dimension Door (when I 100% would've taken both when I levelled up as I was planning ahead for possible situations I might be faced with and I had a 1st level spell I don't ever use), it's no use to me in the moment where my life might be at risk that "at least I can change spells each day".
Sure, but its much easier to plan ahead for tomorrow than for your next 6 weeks or whatever it takes to level up. Whatever 2 spells you picked at 4th level there will be a lot of well darn I really needed this 4th level spell instead. But now, you know you are entering the tomb of the something evil sounding and you can custom pick that 4th level spell to something that fits better than both polymorph and dimension door. Especially since now you are more free to pick divining spells the day before, so you will have a better idea of what to prepare.
Edit to add I forgot Bards are losing teleportation effects since they don't have conjuration. That is a hit, not due to the prep style but teleports are big get out of jail free cards. Honestly I think they were far too prevalent in 5e. So I am not sure this is a bad thing. I kind of expect the sorcerer to lose conjuration as well, so maybe only the wizard and warlock will have it.
If you pick out your list of known spells as a long term thing, then you'd pick 2 4th levels that you expect to get use out of consistently (plus possibly a lower level spell you'd want to upcast to 4th on those rare days where you find you don't need either). My core issue is the rigid inflexibility of it literally being impossible to have 2 at the same time to choose from. The versatility I want in a system is to be able to arrange a list of spells that suits me and my character. If I want to build a weird bard who only has 1st level spells and nothing higher, a flexible system would let me.
I see it this way; imagine if they changed martial characters so they had to have a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other. Those slots are set and you have to strictly stick to them. But it's still flexible.....you can pick which weapon you have in that hand. That's what it feels like to be told you HAVE to have 4 1st level spells, no more and no less (just as an example, I'm not specifically picking on 1st level spells, my issue is with having a set number at all levels).
Although I'm not a huge fan of the change, this is where choices have consequences. Except that the consequence only lasts until a long rest. And I think your example is a little off. Hitting fighters with you need to use a one-handed weapon and shield but the flexibility comes in with choosing the weapon doesn't match up. The vast choices of the spell lists give way more versatility than choosing a weapon to wield with your shield (we will have to see what they do with weapons in the Warrior UA). So you might not be able to choose the two or three 6th level spells you want, but the spell lists cover so many things (buff, debuff, damage, battlefield control, etc.) that any spellcaster will still have quite an assortment of options that your Fighter example would not have.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Hey don't get me wrong I prefer the 5e method, but compared to fixed known spells it is a buff, compared to a non robust spell book it is a buff. My peak preference would be all arcane casters get a spell book except the sorcerer. Bard/lock/wizard prepare spells like the wizard did in 5e though reduce the total number a bit, the sorcerer has known spells but its 15 and sub class spells. But I can see that what was given here is a buff overall, is it perhaps less fun for the player, sure but it is a buff.
I’m not sure what they will do with wizards but what would you think if they become prepared casters like everyone else. And they prepare spells like everyone else, but they also get to pick a certain number of ritual spells they they can put in their spellbook which they can cast as rituals without being prepared, like now. Although they might need to get rid of scribing spells from scrolls so they can’t just put every ritual in their spellbook.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Sakura is correct, freely chosen from any level you can cast" gets us right back to the way things work in 5e where you can topload your preparations. I don't want the number of higher level spell preparations to increase, I'm looking for those to be limited but you can trade them out for additional lower-level preparations if you want.
I'm not a fan of the changes so far to spellcasting mechanics being done in 1D&D, on multiple levels. I get the idea behind not wanting classes like Rangers & Bards to feel stuck with spell choices they later regret, but I liked the classes having different approaches to how they learn & use their magic. I don't like the new limitation on how many spells of each level you can prepare, I think it only detracts without adding anything except forced limitations. And I'm really not a fan of the new rule for ritual casting. I liked the idea that the "technique" of ritual spellcasting had to be learned, it wasn't inherent in the spell itself. Heck, I don't even like the new Ritual Caster feat. Being able to skip the extra 10 minutes feels like a poor tradeoff for only getting those two 1st-level ritual spells. So far, the changes are leaving me worried about what's going to distinguish the Wizard in the new rules.